Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 29 January	31 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Said Baaghil

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Terrible article. Fails WP:BIO.scope_creep (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 01:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 01:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 01:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 01:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although the promotional style of the article is fixable, the subject does not appear to meet notability guidelines. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sadads (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dina Ousley

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not finding any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businesswoman. Promotional article, created by a likely COI/paid editor. Edwardx (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Dead refs. Fails WP:BIO scope_creep (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found a lot of good articles about her in Newspapers.com and added them to the article. She is the pioneer of the airbrush makeup kit and there's enough info about her and her work for her to pass GNG. Pinging Scope creep to take another look. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep She does seem to be the commercial pioneer of airbrush makeup, about 30+ years ago. It was an old technique, but used sparsly in the cinema. As a bit part actor she is not notable. There is also a fair number of GBook refs, in name only. scope_creep (talk) 10:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as extra reliable sources references have been added so that WP:GNG is passed Atlantic306 (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn - As noted below I failed to paste the entire name which is why nothing showed up!, Closing as obviously meets GNG (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 13:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JGSP Novi Sad

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable bus company, Fails COMPANY & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 22:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. –Miles Edgeworth^Talk 07:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Second largest bus operator in Serbia. The problem is nobody properly put references so far. To add references for previously deleted content by User:Davey2010 [1].--AirWolf ^talk 11:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References have been added; cleaned up also.--AirWolf ^talk 12:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per apparent failure of WP:BEFORE, precisely D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability. The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, each giving a plethora of sourcing [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. What makes you even think that the sole public transport company of a European city of 300,000 is unnotable? WP:NOTCLEANUP. No such user (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted) The reason sources weren't found is because I didn't paste the entire company correctly I somehow pasted this which as you can see comes back with nothing!, (Redacted). –Davey2010^Talk 13:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sitanath Munda

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Could not find any sources to substantiate claims like Award Winning. Fails WP:BLP and WP:GNG Hagennos (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of recognition as "Outstanding Traditional Knowledge Holder" and by award from National Innovation Foundation - India. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He only got a consolation award. That does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BIO --Hagennos (talk) 05:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG. Google Scholar listed a single publication, cited three times. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Cwmhiraeth and User:Hagennos Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. And salt. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Defiant Wrestling

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page was previously nominated for deletion. Result was to stubify in order to attempt to prove notability. Nothing has been added to the article which proves notability, only to recreate what was removed by stubify. Galatz ^Talk 21:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz ^Talk 21:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Galatz ^Talk 21:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Galatz ^Talk 21:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Galatz ^Talk 21:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the status-quo is being abused and can not continue. The subject is minimally notable. I think there are two options:

Stubify again (i.e. remove all the wretched tables and all the unreferenced and badly referenced claims) and then protect the article.
Delete the whole thing and let that be a lesson to them. :-p

My gut says delete but I'd be happy with either, so long as it puts a stop to the timewasting. I'd also like to see a wider sweep for fancruft in articles about other semi-notable Pro-Wrestling promotions. (But then I don't really have any right to demand other people do that that given that I took one look at it, considered doing so, and then promptly lost the will to live.) --DanielRigal (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Heavily promoted article by both fans and WP:PAID crowd. No notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creep (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We've tried to work with this and establish notability but it just hasn't happened. Unfortunately, the article has just become a mecca for fans to add cruft.LM2000 (talk) 03:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If deleted, this needs to be Salted. This article has been deleted previously via AfD under its former name, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What Culture Pro Wrestling. The subject may become notable at some point, which is why it got stubbed in the first place, but our good faith has been abused too much in this case. It should go through the draft process before it gets accepted to the mainspace.LM2000 (talk) 10:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'm not strongly pushing for a delete myself (although I'm also not against it) but whatever outcome we do reach needs to be enforced this time. Everybody here has got better things to do than fight to keep this one article under control. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Scope creep, and LM2000. –Miles Edgeworth^Talk 07:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify and Page Protect - I don't really like the idea of just doing a hard delete for a topic that we've agreed to be notible, and we have things in place to be able to keep articles like this from being bloated. I'm also against a blanket sweep of articles about professional wrestling, or any other genre. If an article is notible, it should really stay, but it does need to be stable. I am very disapointed that we have had to have users completely ignore consensus on two seperate occasions for this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Where was it agreed that it is notable? The original closure said there was no consensus on it. - Galatz ^Talk 12:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Having read back the original discussion, you are spot on. I thought it was a lot more people saying we should stubify to remove cruft, but that the idea was notible, but it seems as though people were leaning delete. Actually, you were one of the few people voting keep! Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I was. But I felt the consensus was leaning against what I felt. Based on that I feel no additional notability has been established, which is why I nominated it again. - Galatz ^Talk 14:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AfD is not the right venue to request page protection, nor to decide on the article content. If the main subject of the article is 'fancruft'(?) and that is not notable, then it should be questioned if the article is actually notable, since an article cannot become less notable via people adding content. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC) — WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]
- Correct it is not. The issue is that the original closure was to stubify in order to attempt to product notability. The current version of the page has 35 references. 15 of these are some form of WP:PRIMARY. Another 5 are to CageMatch, which is only an RS for results, not to prove notability. Many of the other sources included are not listed as a RS on WP:PW/RS. - Galatz ^Talk 12:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete and a permanent one This self-promoted so-called wrestling championship is a pre-scripted entertainmment event. WP:NSPORT doesn't apply. I can see nothing that meets WP:GNG - and innumerable non WP:RS sources keep yo-yo-ing back in and out after the previous no consensus !vote with which I was not involved. (I note it was stubify - but we're back to circa 23,000 bytes already. Oops, no, that was this morning. Now it's at 42,900) I did, however, innocently AfD three new Defiant Wrestling-related pages created by SPI's and then got drawn into this sorry saga of likely WP:PAID, but definitely WP:COI-editing by sockpuppets - of which it looks like we have another one sprung up since Corageione et al were blocked for SPI. But the content from those three non-Notable AFD-ed pages then magically reappeared inside this one, which itself is of dubious notability - or non-notable as I interpret it. Show us the reliable, independent sources which have covered this subject in depth and then I'll withdraw my !vote. We're being abused by promoters - plain and simple. This isn't a case of WP:TNT - this topic now needs a hard delete, and with page recreation prevented. I'm pinging @Spartaz:, the closing admin the first time around who said: If we have issues with SPAs and COI editors coming in to push the previous mess we can either move it to draft or have another discussion (hint if its go 2 and the pov pushing is continuing the community tends to delete and not exercise much AGF I think we know where this now needs to go. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Changing my vote to Delete and Salt scope_creep (talk) 12:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt based on the background given by Nick Moyes.Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per above. I'll be userfying this, as it has over a dozen reliable/non-routine sources, but it should go through the draft process. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Doane

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Run-of-the-mill businesswoman. Promotional article, created by a likely COI/paid editor. Edwardx (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very poor referencing on a blp article. Most of the coverage seems to mentions of other folks. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does have signs consistent with PROMO, including that the founding acct (which has worked substantially only on one other article, which also may have the same problem as this one) has rotated a series of commercial photographs of the subject through the article's history. Agricola44 (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Move to draft.* This has to be sourced before it can come back to main space. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(*Draft:Nemra (band).) – Athaenara ✉ 00:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nemra (band)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am not sure the article is notable enough to be in Wikipedia. It says that the band's songs got some awards, however, there are no sources for that. Harut111 (talk) 11:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Harut111 (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Harut111 (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Harut111 (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Harut111 (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Harut111 (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable band and poorly sourced. Fails WP:BAND. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 17:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is possible that you have confused VMA with another international competition. There is also a competition VMA(Van Music Awards) in Armenia, and here you can find information about it http://vmafm.am/about-project/ , and here about the awards http://vmafm.am/category/2013/,http://vmafm.am/category/2015/november-2015/,http://vmafm.am/category/participants-2017/september-2017/ .If there are more questions, please, do not hesitate to write and please, mention the sources the article lacks. Dreamer14513181 (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I recommend giving this article time to develop because there is evidence that the band has been mentioned as appearing at festivals and award shows in their country, and have gained some basic notability there. But the article needs to be improved significantly, and with some unnecessary details removed. To the person working on the article (Dreamer14513181), look up the Wikipedia terms fancruft and reliable sources to see why some people here are opposed to the article's existence. Also consider calling upon the Rescue Squad for assistance. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your help DOOMSDAYER520 . We have tried to remove the unnecessary details and have added the reliable sources, please check it out, so the article becomes verifiable. Dreamer14513181 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of help (but you can't vote in this debate twice). The article is improving, but still quite dependent on Facebook and YouTube as verification that certain events happened. If they cannot be verified any other way, they may not be notable events. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ Performing at festivals is not enough for WP:NBAND - the awards probably do not meet the current criteria Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. - I think this is a bit unfair to those may win awards that are important in their country, but this is the current critera. These criteria may help establish notability for these types of bands: Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. or Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network. but I haven't seen any WP:RS for this. The music videos are mentioned but I can't find any source besides YouTube. I don't think the article can be kept unless an independent RS can be found that establishes notability. Also noting the article creator has voted twice in this AfD and one of the votes should be struck.Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I am not sure when this AfD will close, but I think if they are selected to represent Armenia at Eurovision on Feb. 25th, this would be enough for notability. If the AfD closes before this, I think the best thing would be to userify or move to draftspace and the article can be recreated when notability can be established with independent, secondary sources. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or userfy. I've looked at the sources in both the English and the Armenian articles, and cannot see anything WP:RS to justify a keep vote. I would vote delete but for one thing: Armenia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2018. If they are selected on 25 February 2018, IMO they should pass WP:NBAND. If their single "I'm a Liar" charts in Armenia and/or gets placed on rotation, IMO they may pass. Narky Blert (talk) 12:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or userfy changing vote, there is a chance this will pass NBAND in the future, but it does not right now.Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My point entirely. It would be a pity to delete all the work that went into this article should the band sail through WP:NBAND in just three weeks time. Narky Blert (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the article should stay as the band is one of the most notable rock bands in Armenia and is getting more and more famous every day. Besides, they are the first to represent Armenia in an international festival, they also had concerts in Georgia and they are always busy with festivals and concerts. I think they have changed a lot in Armenian rock industry, that is why the article should stay. Susanna ghazoyan (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, add some WP:RS sources, in any language. As of now, there aren't any. Narky Blert (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Garst

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businesswoman. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete One of the ref's has malware at the end of it. Most of the refs are blog, and affiliate sites, social media. Not much in the way of coverage. She is also advertising her book on Amazon. Changed to strong delete.scope_creep (talk) 01:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not seeing anything approaching what would count as references from reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh Venugopal

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dinesh Venugopal is a businessman. He has been interviewed on behalf of his company and has received an award for which he paid a fee, but I do not believe he meets our notability requirements. The article is mildly promotional and appears to be written by an undisclosed CoI editor. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BLP Hagennos (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Haven't been able to find independent sources for notbility Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. T. Canens (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Denise Stephens

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has come to some prominence at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#DYK_and_COI/paid_editors. As a US associate professor, this likely fails WP:NACADEMIC. I am also struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources about her (after all, it was her student(s) who found the planet) - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Edwardx (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Every Morning (there's a halo...) 00:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep She passes WP:NPROF and subsequently WP:BIO, with a citation number of 1806 and an H-index of 22. WP:SNOW keep close. scope_creep (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question I rarely nominate academics for deletion, so am unclear from reading WP:NPROF whether those numbers are adequate to meet criterion #1; noting from h-index, that "physics has the second most citations after space science". Edwardx (talk) 12:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an interesting, well-researched article which presents the achievements of an enthusiastic university teacher. She is certainly sufficiently notable.--Ipigott (talk) 07:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and boggle. Passes WP:GNG (just) per article[7] about her leading undergraduate students to discover a planet.
And note the massive systemic bias underpinning this nomination. If Stephens was a male professional footballer, then her notability would be automatic per WP:NFOOTY even if her only professional appearance was a few minutes as a substitute in a single game. If she was a porn star, then she'd be an automatic keep per WP:PORNBIO#2 for her unique contribution.
In this case, Stephens has been employed as a professional academic in major university for over ten years, which is way more than the notability threshold for footballers. Yet we still have a call to delete the article. Boggle.
Are we here to build an encyclopedia? Or to run a fanzine for football fans and porn users? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You state that it just passes WP:GNG because of that article, yet GNG states, "multiple sources are generally expected". And as it is a local newspaper, it seems reasonable to expect more than just that one article. As for any bias, it is not my bias, so cannot underpin this nomination. With nearly 4,000 article creations, none of "mine" are footballer players or porn stars, and I started over 100 articles for notable women in November alone. Edwardx (talk) 12:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @Edwardx: It's odd to call The Salt Lake Tribune a local newspaper, when List of newspapers in Utah shows it to be the biggest-circulation newspaper in Utah. "Regional and local" papers are listed below, and The Salt Lake Tribune isn't one of them.
And I note you don't actually dispute disagree that if she was a footballer, then she'd be an automatic keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @BrownHairedGirl: I accept that the SLT is technically a regional paper, albeit one with a small and shrinking circulation. It's still not "multiple sources". And other stuff exists is never a persuasive AfD argument. Not sure if she was ever a football player, but I have started "the most remarkable referee in England". Edwardx (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwardx: I agree with BrownHairedGirl: the Salt Lake Tribune isn't just a "local" paper and even if it was, it wouldn't cease to be a reliable source that helps establish notability. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @Megalibrarygirl: The circulation number may be similar, but those Irish and Danish papers are read by the country's leaders; not the case for the SLT, barring Mitt Romney and the heads of the LDS. Edwardx (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note - @Edwardx: The leaders of the United States likely do read the Salt Lake Tribune. For example the six senators listed here are certainly within it's target demographic, my understanding is that members of the LDS are well represented in American politics, and that this is their main publication. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC) — WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]

@Edwardx: my point has nothing to do with the size of the SLT's readership. It simply doesn't matter. A local source is still a reliable source. It still helps show notability. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Reply @Edwardx: shrinking circulation is an issue for nearly every newspaper worldwide, as news goes online. SLT's circulation remains similar to that of the major newspapers of smaller, highly-developed countries such as Ireland and Denmark (Irish Times, Politiken, Berlingske).

I am not making a Wikipedia:Other stuff exists argument. I am arguing against the way in which we are asked to assess the notability of this article against a set of guidelines which have been captured by the pop culture interests of en.wp's dominant demographic of editors, contrary to the basic principle that (per WP:ABOUT) this is an encyclopedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as already explained by others, clearly meets WP:NPROF criteria. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC) — WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]
Maybe Discovering planets is important but it's clear that it is happening all the time and the only source that discusses her work in detail is the Salt Lake Tribune but that is in the context of her training her students to do it. The Wall Street Journal is behind a paywall but appears to be about how they have a lot of PhDs on the university football team. The Daily Herald discusses in a few sentences how she runs Astrofest, an annual public outreach event that introduces children to science, worthwhile but hardly significant coverage. The other sources are even weaker being extracts from her own CV or course details. Sorry, but there is no "boggle" about it, the current article is very borderline as BrownHairedGirl noted and does not make her individual significance clear. Perhaps it can be rectified with additional sources, but right now the case for her notability is not proven. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Philafrenzy: Do you disagree that if she was a footballer, then she'd be an automatic keep? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I take your word for it, I never create articles on sport, but have often had to defend professors at AFD who would probably be automatic keeps if they were sportspeople, but this is not the place to try to change policies, however perverse or unjust they may be. (check my user page for the probably 100s of notable women I have created articles about) The fact remains that this is weak article about a person on the borderline of notability. I note that despite everyone saying above how obvious it is that she is notable, the article has only had one minor edit since this discussion started. Prove it! Add the sources and then it will be kept. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFOOTY and WP:NPROF are not policies. They are guidelines, which are intended to be descriptive rather than prescriptive. Stephens would be an automatic keep if she was a male footballer, and I see no basis in policy for imposing a higher bar on a knowledge creator than is applied to an entertainer. If one professional gig is enough to keep an article on someone who kicks a piece of inflated leather and received zero GNG-qualifying secondary coverage, then it's enough to keep someone who has made an enduring (albeit minor) contrib to the sum of human knowledge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who claimed she is less notable than a footballer? Not me. I am calling for evidence of her scholarly impact to be added to the article to prove her notability. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)4[reply]

Your initial !vote said right now the case for her notability is not proven. If she was a footballer, it would be taken as proven. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not proven per the GNG or as an academic. I never mentioned football. Enough already with the football comparisons BrownHairedGirl please. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When the double standard goes, I'll drop the comparison. But while ball-kickers get a free pass on GNG, I'll apply the same to academics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes PROF, as per Scope creep. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Edwardx, an H-index of 22 is reasonable, any citation count above 500 would be very respectable. 1806, means that she is at the top of her field and/or brilliant, or both. There is a guide on WP that will tell you. A H-index below 10, and a citation count, below a 100-200 is low, below 100 is very low and would need WP:SIGCOV to support. I saw this BLP in WP:AFC last month that was being continually rejected, but was an academic who had a citation count of about 69000. Some kind of primary brain, psycho nutter type. The NProf standard is the only non subjective notabilty measure that we have on WP, so it is very easy to tell at a glance. Snow Keep. scope_creep (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think we have a notable academic. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per scope_creep's numbers. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PROF#C1 at the very least. XOR'easter (talk) 01:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically this is a case of WP:BLP1E, i.e., the planet discovery (mostly because it was discovered when she was an undergrad; there are thousands of known exoplanets). I won't challenge the numerical veracity of ScopeCreep's data but I will challenge the inference he draws. Assuming GS numbers were used, an h-index of 22 and a citation count of 1800 are unremarkable for an associate prof working in the sciences at a research oriented institution. She's a solid, productive mid-career scientist but I'm not seeing that the criteria of WP:NPROF are satisfied. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per scope_creep. I do not agree with BrownHairedGirl's football/pornstar analogies – though certainly Wikipedia and the media in general have systematic biases favouring men, the arguments made seem to be more in favour of policy changes than relevant to this particular discussion. However, I think Stephens has just about received significant coverage in the Salt Lake Tribune, Daily Herald and Wall Street Journal articles (though I can't read the paywalled WSJ source) and I understand her citation count makes her notable (though WP:NPROF says "Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness" so I'm not sure whether the h-index of 22 is particularly relevant). — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 14:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The SL Tribune article is not a local article. The Provo Daily Herald is local, Salt Lake City is not local. What next will we have people saying an article in the Detroit News on someone in Lansing is "local coverage"? Here [8] is an article from Salt Lake based KSL on the planet discovery. I guess, knowing past arguments, some will argue that since BYU and KSL are both owned by the LDS Church, this somehow is not an indepdent article, but this ignores the actual way news gathering is done at KSL among other things. I'm not sure this link adds much [9], but it provides more information than we have on some football players. I would argue we need to make the notability guidelines for football players a bit more stringent. The attempt to hold being an assistant professor against her seems to be a misunderstanding of the American academic system. Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Full Professors, at least at BYU, are all full-time positions. I was going to say "tenure track" but BYU does not technically grant tenure, but it does grant continuing status that is similar in most respects to tenure. Considering that Stephens is the mother of 7 children, her still being an Assistant Professor may in part be a result of taking maternity leave, but this has not prevented her from publishing and making significant community and university impact. Assistant professors are in all sense professors, very different from adjunctnt professors, who are "part time" in pay, but not always in work load. At heart the deletion nomination may reflect the systemic difficulties of married mothers advancing in academia, but Stephens has clearly made a notable impact. The claim "it was her students who discovered the planet" is misleading in the extreme. Most discoveries are done by groups, and she was the leader of the group. I won't claim to fully understand h-index and citation counts, but if 22 is not high enough as an h-index and 1800 is not high enough as a google scholar specific citation count, we should just scrap academic notability criteria #1 and instead made academics rise or fall on GNG alone, with possible exceptions for more specified academic criteria, which will be much easier for academics who do not have to spend over 5 cumulative years pregnant, and who instead of choosing a high impact to future learning activity like sponsoring BYU's astrofest, spend their time in activities that more fully fit in some rigid definition of major academic activity. If we are to keep academic notability criteria 1, than we will keep the article on Stephens.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Wall Street Journal article is about a intramural flag-football team that she is the captain of. It plays against other women's flag football teams at BYU, the other ones are all made up of students. It is the only intramural team that is made up of female faculty at the university. BYU has a fairly active, broad, and large system of intramural sports. Many of the teams are fielded by student wards, which are religious congregations of about 150 students. I was in multiple student wards that fielded intramural teams, although I myself never participated. The Deseret News ran this article [10] that should make it so everyone can understand what is going on with the Wall Street Journal article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The new source you added John is directly about her but its not very in depth nor is it independent. I see you added it at the end under "Sources", presumably because you knew it wasn't independent? I changed it to External Links. It might also qualify as Further Reading. The stuff about her children and tenure progression and being a victim of her gender etc is all completely irrelevant here, however valid those points might be elsewhere. We still lack reliable independent sources that discuss her in depth apart from the SLT which I agree is sound. If you follow the link to the paper in Nature about the discovery of the planet, which I was optimistic might help, in fact one sees she is one of around 50 authors credited. I know that's not unusual in scientific papers but it hardly helps here. Frankly, the article and some of the sources, the fact that it was created by a student at her university, are all beginning to look promotional of the subject. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. In case anyone has forgotten, the student who created the article was paid and then put it forward at DYK, where it would have reached the front page if the reviewer (who has not voted here) had not noticed the problems with it. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The previous comments on the Salt Lake Tribune are very misleading. The Salt Lake Tribune is if anything an anti-Mormon paper. It as often disparages the LDS Church and its leadership as anything else, and is a key player in attempts to weaponize suicide rates. The lead publication of the LDS Church is the Deseret News. The Deseret News has especially through its Church News and related supplamant wide circulation far beyond the most broad regional interpretation of the Utah/Mormon cultural zone. It is without question the provider of the most indepth articles we get in a physical newspaper at my house in Sterling Heights, Michigan, and the newspaper I most often go to to get quick reads on broad US news, and even outside Michigan coverage of Michigan events, in its online form. Yet my sister-in-law is a reporter for the Salt Lake Tribune. I would guess that all four members of the US house and 2 members of the US senate from Utah subscribe to both papers, and Love and Curtis probably also subscribe to the Provo Daily Herald. The Salt Lake Tribune won a Pulitzer Prize last year for its reporting on issues about BYU policies, although some of us would argue that the reporting was far less than balanced. One thing that has become clear in the previous discussions is that people are willing to comment on things they know almost nothing about. The reason I added the source under "sources" is because I actually only used it to source her maiden name, and did not think linking a source to her name was worth doing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is consensus the SLT is a sound source, the trouble is it is the only good one here and it discusses her in a context of a collective effort as confirmed by the numerous authors in the Nature paper. Where are the other sources that discuss her in depth? We need more than one. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There simply are not enough published sources.104.163.148.25 (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
meh. This person is marginally notable (barely.. and probably on the side of failing); the article was created by an employee of the school and this thing was very PR-y in a very classic and depressing university BOOSTER PR kind of way. However, it is OK now, there is some notability, and we want more articles about women in STEM. I doubt that Stephens is going to fall off the face of the earth so it is likely that the notability argument will only get stronger with time, so let it be. I don't at all like the "footy" argument. If the whole encyclopedia got dragged down to the level of our pages (which I will not call "articles") about sports people and pop culture topics I would quit. Please do not argue to make WP more shitty by drawing analogies to the shittiest parts of it. Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Al Baker. T. Canens (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brittani Bo Baker

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Her father was a notable football player, but WP:NOTINHERITED applies here. Run-of-the-mill businesswoman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Written by a SPA, this is fairly blatant PROMO of the subject's business and social activities. May be notable, but TNT probably applies here before we could really know that. Agricola44 (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to article on her father, where all that is covered in this article can be covered in a much less promotional way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Gould (designer)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Fails WP:BIO. No refs. Little coverage. scope_creep (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails all notability guidelines. Name dropping in an article does not show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Spofford Morgan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography of a person whose only discernible notability claim is that he married his partner in 2011 after same-sex marriage was legalized. Virtually all of the references here are WP:ROUTINE obituaries of him, his husband and his mother upon their deaths, or glancing namechecks of his existence in sources that aren't about him — and the only reference that's actually about him is a blurb about the marriage itself in a "reasons to love New York" listicle. The simple fact of getting married is not, in and of itself, a reason why a person gets an encyclopedia article, and notability is not inherited, so having a notable mother doesn't automatically make him special either — but the sourcing here isn't adequate to make his marriage more notable than millions of other marriages. Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with a redirect to his mother Barbara Spofford Morgan. If you are fine with me proceeding right now, I can do that. Elisa.rolle (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and do not redirect. This person is quite simply non-notable, per nom. Getting married does not confer notability, and nor does being gay – both are extremely common. There's no reason to keep a redirect, and there's surely no justification for copying the content of the article into that of his mother. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge and redirect 51000 google hits [11] and [12] and [13] and [14] and [15] and [16] and more than 500 google books references [17] and [18] and [19] and [20] and [21] and says that the name is notable. I should add the name was already in wikipedia on the grandfather page. A short paragraphs on the mother with a redirect is the minimum.Elisa.rolle (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They are not notable. scope_creep (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Elisa.rolle (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride. Elisa.rolle (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies. Elisa.rolle (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The "more than 500 Google books" turn out to be 11 "books"[22], none of them with any text that would indicate notability for John Spofford Morgan (he gets thanked for helping in research, or is listed as a member of something, that's it). The regular Google hits drop down to 28 hits on closer scrutiny as well[23]. The attempted canvassing is also noted. Fram (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Open google search About 190,000 results (0.41 seconds) [24] Closed google search About 9,760 results (0.36 seconds) [25] Closed google books search About 647 results (0.34 seconds) [26] For notability the subject could not be the main topic, it's enought the sources are reliable. Elisa.rolle (talk) 08:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With Google searches you need to check that the numbers are not massively inflated, as is often the case. Go to page 10 and see if you still get results. No? Then the original numbers are way too high. Your statement "For notability the subject could not be the main topic, it's enought the sources are reliable." is not true. For notability, the sources need to pay significant attention to the subject, not just mention it in passing. Please indicate one or two of your Goohgle Books results which pay significant attention to the subject. Fram (talk) 09:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New York Magazine reliable source, on the subject, independent. (reblogged many times)

Norfolk Now reliable source, on the subject, independent.

Library of Congress reliable source, on the subject even if not main topic, independent.

District of Columbia Library Association reliable source, on the subject even if not main topic, independent.

Norfolk Historical Society reliable source, on the subject even if not main topic, independent.

Party Animals Travel Across the Nation: LC Traveling Exhibition Features Political Symbols, reliable source, on the subject even if not main topic, independent.

Library of Congress Information Bulletin, reliable source, on the subject even if not main topic, independent.

By-laws, Rules and List of Officers and Members, reliable source, not main topic, independent.

Boston Symphony Orchestra, Volume 59, reliable source, not main topic, independent.Elisa.rolle (talk) 10:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the first two are well-known by now and not from Google Books anyway. The others: this is not about John Spofford Morgan, it is about his ancestor? This, this and this is the exact same article. This is a newsletter from an historical society for a town of less than 2,000 inhabitants. These kind of hobbyists newsletters don't give notability. This is an entry in a list of members of a club, as is this. Like I said above already... Being mentioned a few times, mostly in relation to an ancestor, does not give someone notability. Which leaves you with the Nymag and nornow articles, where the Norfolk now is an obituary in a very local newswebsite, and the other is a typical lifestyle one-event news item. There simply isn't the notability we require for biographies. Fram (talk) 11:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You asked if there were RS on the subject. New York Magazine is a Reliable Source. The Newsletter of a Community is a Reliable Source. The others, even if not on the subject, are Reliable Sources about him (the one about the grandfather already using his name on the Wikipedia page of the Grandfather). And I should add, you are forgetting that my initial proposal is to merge the info on the section of the mother. I think all the reliable sources more than justify a redirect and merge on the mother. Elisa.rolle (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I asked "Please indicate one or two of your Google Books results which pay significant attention to the subject." From my search and your reply, it has become clear that none of them pay significant attention to the subject (they either are about an ancestor, or just mention him in a list). So your posts about hundreds of Google Books results are inflated and misleading, as there aren't hundreds but 11, and those 11 don't give him any notability. And considering that the sources about the mother don't pay attention to him, and that the few sources about him don't pay attention to his mother, merging the two is just an attempt to keep this information in enwiki no matter what. Fram (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your opinion as I'm to mine. New York magazine (which was reblogged more times), the official Newsletter of the Norfolk town, the official website of the Library of Congress AND their bulletin (more than once) are all Reliable Source who deals with the subject in dept. Other sources (Harvard Club and Boston Symphony Society) refers to him to in a list. Elisa.rolle (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being reblogged is not important, being referred to in a list is not important, being mentioned (once, republished the same text in multiple places) by the LoC in an article about an ancestor where the subject helped with the research is not an indicator of notability either (for the ancestor, yes, not for the subject). All yo have is the NYMag article and the Norfolk obituary. You think this is sufficient, others here clearly don't agree. Fram (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2385 characters on the New York Magazine on the subject: [27], 2105 character on the Norfolk newsletter: [28], 1118 characters on the Library of Congress webiste just on the subject (I did not count that on the ancestor): [29] 1684 characters on the Norfolk Historical Society on the subjec t: [30]. This amount to 7292 characters directly on the subject from Reliable Sources. The listing just help support the notability. I summarized them in a 1329 paragraph (using [31] and [32] and [33] and [34] and [35] and [36] and [37]) as a merge and redirect on the mother. I think that is fair enough. Elisa.rolle (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The LoC has nothing directly on the subject[38]. Read that article and tell me what JS Morgan is known for. Never mind why that would be relevant information for the article on his mother. The Norfolk newsletter you now reference is indeed not an obituary, but is also not the official Newsletter of the Norfolk town, but the newsletter of the Norfolk Historical Society. The obituary is the article from the Norfolk Town news site. Fram (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out that one of the main sources it's actually not a duplicate but a new one, "Norfolk Historical Society". Elisa.rolle (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You already included both separately in your above list of sources (second and fifth one), and I already discussed them above, so there is litle "new" about it, and it still is a hobbyists newsletter from a small local club (the historical society of a town with less than 2,000 inhabitants). Fram (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

you said potato, I said patata. "Norfolk Historical Society" is not "Norfolk Town". Elisa.rolle (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 19:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gwenaëlle Gobé

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Run-of-the-mill person. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 19:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little in the way of coverage. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough indepth coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, have found some passing mentions but not enough for notability. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON, only a small body of work (mainly short films) at this time Atlantic306 (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Jacques-Alain Miller. T. Canens (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hurly-Burly

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article AfDed in 2012 (no consensus) with reason "Non-notable journal. No independent sources, not included in any selective databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." It's still not indexed anywhere and no independent sources supporting notability have come up (despite some puffery in the article from involved persons). Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link to the 2012 AfD (didn't show automatically because the article was moved): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hurly-Burly (Journal)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not in Web of Science, not in Scopus, only 32 articles returned by Google Scholar (which has pretty much everything) and only a handful of GS citations. No Google Scholar Metric for the journal. In other words: this journal is not even remotely bloody WP:NOTABLE. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 11:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons eloquently expressed by Famousdog. The faster the better. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jacques-Alain Miller , the founder. I'm not sure the usual standards for academic journal do not apply to this work which has its context only within Lacanian psychoanalysis. It would be very surprising to find material of that sort in WOS or SCOPUS. DGG ( talk ) 19:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC) .[reply]

I'd be fine with a merge to any of Jacques-Alain Miller, Jacques Lacan, or New Lacanian School, whichever is deemed most suitable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jacques-Alain Miller per DGG Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Ann Roberts

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a single-market local radio host and non-winning candidate for political office. As always, neither single-market radio hosts nor unelected political candidates are granted an automatic presumption of notability just for existing, but the sourcing here isn't actually helping to single her out as more notable than the norm for either endeavour: her radio work is covered off by a single source from the local media about her announcing her retirement, and her unsuccessful campaign for office is supported by purely run of the mill campaign-related coverage of the type and volume that every candidate in any election always gets.
For both local talk radio hosts and non-winning election candidates, the key to making them notable enough for a Wikipedia article is not just to show that some sources exist, because some sources always exist for everybody who does either of those things -- the key to getting someone into Wikipedia on either of those grounds is to demonstrate that for some real reason she's substantially more notable than the thousands of other people who've been local radio hosts and/or unsuccessful election candidates without getting Wikipedia articles for that. But the sourcing here is just showing exactly what every local radio host and every candidate in every election could always show, and is not demonstrating a credible reason why she's more notable than everybody else who's done the same things. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- not notable as politician or radio host as per Bearcat.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete defeated candidates for political office are almost always not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Thomas (graphic designer)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is only for JESS3. That article is remarkably promotional, but I think the importance is mainly for the firm . Certainly having two is using WP for promotionalism DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Article originator here. At the time I created this article in 2012, I believed it met the threshold for notability. However, I recognize that consensus has shifted to a stricter reading of guidelines—especially regarding companies and their founders—and on that basis, I have no objection to deletion. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to JESS3 per DGG Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella Macdonald

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography, referenced to a single primary source that's much more about her husband than her, of a person notable only as the first wife of a politician. While her husband did eventually become Prime Minister of Canada, that didn't happen until ten years after Isabella's death -- so it doesn't make her a spouse of a Prime Minister of Canada for the purposes of clearing the "first lady" exemption to WP:NOTINHERITED, because she wasn't married to him during his term as PM. We extend "first lady" notability to people who are married to a national leader during the national leadership -- but we do not grant "extended genealogy" notability to the first wives that the future leaders were divorced from or widowed by a full decade before actually becoming a national leader, if their notability and sourceability in their own right is this limited. (I'll grant Edna Diefenbaker as an isolated special exception to that, because she was actually the subject in her own right of a full-on biography by a major Canadian writer separately from having had her name mentioned in sources about her husband — but it's the book that makes her a special case, not any sort of automatic inclusion freebie for dead first wives of MPs who hadn't attained the Prime Ministership yet.) Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:HEYMANN, thanks to User:Ipigott for major upgrade to article, sourcing, to which I want to add both the fact that as the wife of one Prime Minister and mother of another, she gets profiled in biographies of both, and the fact that this article, which has been with us since 2003, gets ~20,000 hits a month. I know that this is not a policy=based argument, but it is a kind of people's vote - clearly, people come here to check out the wife of the first Prime Minister of Canada.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am very surprised to see that this very early Wikipedia women's biography from 2003 is suddenly up for deletion, especially as the nominator has edited the article several times since 2009. As the first wife of Canada's first prime minister and the mother of his only surviving son Hugh John Macdonald, Isabella Clark Macdonald has an important place in Canadian history. As noted above, I have come across several accounts of the life of Isabella and have started expanding the article along these lines. The article is no longer based on a single primary source.--Ipigott (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG, with 2 pieces of substantive coverage[39][40], and a para in her husvand's biog in the Dictionary of Canadian biography[41]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. NOTINHERITED does not mean that we cannot have articles on people who have an association with someone more famous than themselves. It merely means that we have to demonstrate that the subject is notable by our usual rules, instead of using arguments based on their association. In this case, GNG notability has been demonstrated. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per WP:GNG. Sources added by other editors demonstrate notability. Thsmi002 (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are more than adequate sources present in the article, although it is clear the article could benefit from several others that do exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme: Personal Assistant

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NSOFTWARE and WP:GNG nothing found of note in a WP:BEFORE search. Sartup pitch and the company's own web site, a forum, a facebook page and a PR churnalism article are far from sufficent. Article written by a user with almost the same name as the developer... Dom from Paris (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Adverting page. scope_creep (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fallon Fox

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article primary written around Fox's gender issues of being a transgender MMA fighter in female division. No top tier promotion fights - fails WP:NMMA and Fox's last fight 3.5 years ago, meeting nobility criteria seems distance. The page might be written by a paid editor. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC) CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question - @CASSIOPEIA: Can you please explain how this BLP fails WP:GNG? NMMA is about presumed notability, not a threshold for all articles about MMA fighters. From what I can see, she passes GNG as there's significant coverage of her in reliable and mainstream sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. it is not fails of GNG that I refered to but WP:MMA. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 23:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CASSIOPEIA: i understand you mentioned WP:NMMA, but that is not a requirement for all articles about MMA fighters. Rather, MMA fighters who meet those thresholds are presumed to be notable. However, some may be notable for other reasons. I think that's the case here. Fallon Fox notable in part because she is a trans woman MMA fighter. She appears to meet WP:GNG to me. Unless you can convince me her article doesn't meet GNG, I see no reason to delete it. Not meeting NMMA alone isn't sufficient reason. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir:, Fox has not fought not only on top tier promotion she has not fought in second tier as well. She got coverage on news was comment from UFC personals/commentators/press on how would she match up with former champion Ronda Rousey. However, in reality, in term of Fox's fights record or achievement, she was far from meeting the criteria to be make the match up. The coverage she received was not about her fights as a MMA fighter but as a transgender for her fights were mainly routine same as thousands of MMA fighters. It has been always a debate between GNG and SNG in Wikipedia - same as many business men, singers, artists and musicians, they do have coverage on media but most do not pass WP:DIRECTOR, WP:CREATIVE, WP:NACTOR or WP:ENTERTAINER for the criteria to meet nobility based on their achievement of their work, significant of their roles on their field, significant "cult" following. This is same as in sportperson on sport specific nobility criteria to meet on participating on top level competitions, award winning record. GNG covers less form of nobility criteria as long as subject passes significant coverage with reliable source but not subject's achievements. Nobility should be permanent but not passing in my opinion, Fox might meet the criteria 3.5 years ago when she was an active fighter but does she has not been active since and no major achievements received, just as an singer received coverage entering a singing competition but not album was produced years after that. This is mainly my thought. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 10:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While I appreciate the time and thought they put into their reply, I am not convinced by CASSIOPEIA's rationale here. This article meets WP:GNG. Though Fallon Fox might not be in the spotlight anymore, this is akin to a "one hit wonder"; her MMA career was notable, even if short. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. Wikipedia MMA project WP:MMA defined MMA record notability that a fighter had 3 top tier fights or more - see here WP:NMMA and the top tier promoters are UFC and Invicta FC - see here WP:MMATIER. I have nothing against LGBT community - There are plenty of them in top tier MMA today, notably Amanda Nunes, Jéssica Andrade, Tonya Evinger, Nina Ansaroff, Tecia Torres, Raquel Pennington and Sijara Eubanks to name some. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 20:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per above. Rab V (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - easily passes WP:SUSTAINED. L293D (✉ ) 02:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Safari Books Online

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not significantly covered in independent coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Every Morning (there's a halo...) 16:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Every Morning (there's a halo...) 16:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Every Morning (there's a halo...) 16:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep -- for context, I am a computer science librarian at MIT. Safari is a major publishing product -- it is notable as a product that is purchased by most academic libraries in the US as well as by many companies, and is a long-running ebooks platform, and in my estimation is notable in the sense of both broad interest and of being one of the first of its type. It will be mostly covered in the trade publishing and library press. It looks like the article just needs to be re-written to be less spammy and with more coverage; I'll work on finding independent coverage. This article needs caretaking, not deletion. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 14:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

phoebe I'm withdrawing my nom. I hope you'll improve it to some standard as you said above. Thanks in advance. Störm (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Edwards (actor, born 1966)

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After removing the copyright violation, we are left with an article that has the same issues as the version that was deleted at AFD. As G4 has already been declined, I am re-nominating at AFD. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article is worthy of remaining in Wikipedia, as the person is notorious in the acting field. I should modify it little by little Julio P. 03:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julio Puentes (talk • contribs)

The problem is that there's no in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources that would show the subject is notable as defined by Wikipedia. If you have any such sources please add them to the article. Right now all we've got is IMDb. That's not enough. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my previous AfD nomination. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article has 0 reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Young (entrepreneur)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

News coverage is provided only by unreliable sources. None of the sources are intellectually independent. The Buzzfeed article is not by staff but a "Community Contributor". These types of articles can be purchased to create a semblance of news coverage. Outlets like timemail.in ("The Time Mail assures to bring to you the quality contents clubbed with the fearless journalism".)^[1] will publish anything. Mduvekot (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a vanity page. --IndyNotes (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is poorly written. If he is actually the president of FD9, there should be more information about him because FD9 is a known incubator. Also Coordinates collection had become part of a publicly listed company in a widely covered takeover. The author has failed to mention any of those sources. If any experienced editor can rework this to reduce the promotional content, it MAY help. I have removed a LOT of the fluff. Stripped it down to its bare minimum. Not sure if I vote keep (I am searching for more reliable sources) but it is not a strong delete as a "subject" but definitely poorly written.Drmaisel (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete delete based on sources, I'm not really finding the coverage we need. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. T. Canens (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gale Force

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tossing this here as a kind of test balloon. To my understanding, this fails all the criteria at WP:NFILM; in particular there's no substantial and reliable coverage. - Depending on what people more experienced with film criteria think, there seems to be at least half a dozen articles about films by this director (Jim Wynorski) that are at the same level, and I'd either leave them alone or string them up depending on the outcome.

(I see this was earlier closed as redirect and an editor tried to fix it up afterwards, but that doesn't seem to have done anything for the referencing.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep As an article, not a redirect page. This what I wrote in the talk page I beleive I make a good case:

I accidentally restored this page. However, it was very confusing to me as a reader, that why when I clicked on the title of the film was I reading the bio of the director.

For that I do think that it is not proper for Gale Force being a redirect toward the page of the cult director Jim Wynorski. If in one's bio it is important to mention to mention the film Gale Force due to the importance its director of its cast. I would suggest one to write: Gale Force directed by Jim Wynorski, co-starring so and so on.

I prefer keeping the article, however I prefer deletion over keeping it as redirect.

Currently, it is much more worth as reader to stumble on page about Gale Force than to be confused with Wynorski's bio. I saw the film and understand it is a simple direct to video action film. However there is sufficient references out there to confirm the film exist, to have a full synopsis, cast list, release, and even an award section. From which I took the initiative of updating from earlier versions.

The film has a surprisingly famous cast,Treat Williams, Michael Dudikoff, Curtis Armstrong, Susan Walters, Tim Thomerson, Marcia Strassman, and many more, which will keep a Wiki reader going, and clicking away.

Now the Gale Force space exist. Hence I suggest keeping it, over having a page where it is written that it's been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7BF5:DB00:882F:FE11:A004:FC1D (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gale Force is over all a standard direct to DVD film, however it has a nice collaboration people, and was without being an overly important film it was properly released. Gale Force could have a nice standard movie page, with over 5 annotation to prove it exist, that could make for a good read, and allows the reader to click away at interesting names.

NOTE: I did all the mentioned in the last paragraph. Gale Force is now a standard article about a random B-movie with a well known cast.Filmman3000 (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has been reviewed by South Florida Sun Sentinel and also film critic.com which is used as a professional critic at rotten tomatoes which makes it a reliable source according to WikiFilm Project. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to University of Pretoria. T. Canens (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

University of Pretoria Faculty of Theology and Religion

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems completely promotional in nature. Also, nothing to support any sort of notability. Boomer Vial^{Be ready to fight the horde! • Contribs} 13:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am a member of the Pretoria community, and I see nothing promotional about this article. What I do see is simply one more faculty attempting to outline what it is doing on the University of Pretoria campus, like all the other UP faculties which have created similar articles. There are no photos, no hook lines, and no sales pitches. If anything, this article is light on information, and if a reader is to really get a sense of what is happening in Theology and Religion at UP, more content should be made available. As for notability, the article clearly states that the faculty turned 100 years old in 2017, which is a legacy worth noting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.215.99.34 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 11:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to University of Pretoria. Not all faculties merit their own page Gbawden (talk) 06:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article was previously speedied at University of Pretoria Faculty of Theology as nominated by Train2104. Cabayi (talk) 09:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to University of Pretoria. Not notable - turning 100 certainly doesn't confer notability. It's not even among the most notable of UP's faculties. The article is sourced entirely by the faculty's own web pages - except from one page from UMich which makes no mention of UP. The list of external wikilinks to irrelevant wikipages is particularly jarring. The only possible nugget of interest is the association of the faculty to various churches - but which university these days doesn't arrange some kind of membership or accreditation for its graduates in the relevant professional bodies. I'm particularly unimpressed by the authors bad faith attempt to conceal the prior article at University of Pretoria Faculty of Theology by recreating it at Theology and Religion, while still referring it as FoT within the article. If this is the level of paid editing I hope for their client's sake that they give refunds. Cabayi (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with other wikipedians. Redirect it to University of Pretoria. M A A Z T A L K 04:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Downs

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Edwardx (talk) 10:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly does not pass the notability guidelines for academics. The claim that a book by him is a "leading book" needs to be better supported than one reference to one magazine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Puder-York

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businesswoman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 10:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. Nothing in the way of coverage. Lots of no WP:RS, on blogs and affiliate sites. Lots of the refs are mere mentions of her name. scope_creep (talk) 01:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Faust

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 10:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could only find trivial mentions in independent sources such as this and this. Gulumeemee (talk) 04:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be Linkedin. With the number of articles on non-notable business consultants we have, I think we have failed in stopping that. We need stronger safe gaurds against people creating articles on themselves.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Renze

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual. I can't find sources which get us even close to meeting WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 08:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk)

Delete Two papers and no citations means that there's no way to passing WP:PROF. Nothing I can find in the smattering of sources adds up to notability by any other standard. Search results find self-published material, copies of his own autobio blurb, the occasional interview or mention that don't provide much information about him or indication of what-Wikipedia-considers-Notability. XOR'easter (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The claim of course authorship in the article would fall under WP:PROF#C4, but existence or even popularity of an online course is not the same as notability for it, and we have no evidence of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 0 citations. Agricola44 (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Kanki, Uttar Dinajpur#Education. Per User:IamNotU and others. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evergreen Public School, Kanki

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable primary school. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable primary school.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Uttar Dinajpur district, which has no mention. This will improve the article (WP:ATD-M). See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per the RfC that people so delightful chooses to ignore. And so clearly states that SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not a relevant argument. The Banner talk 14:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The argument here is not WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, but WP:ATD-M, a perfectly valid argument that Wikipedia is better served in many cases by a merge/redirect of a non-notable article than a permanent delete. Doing a bold merge in uncontroversial cases like this can save unnecessary debate at AfD. There's no prohibition against a "see also" to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, and WP:NSCHOOL does just that. It provides relevant information about current consensus, including a prominent summary and link to the rfc. The rfc found that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES can't be used as an argument for inherent notability of secondary schools that fail WP:GNG, but we all agree that this school is not notable. "Delete per the rfc" seems in fact to be an invalid counter-argument, since the rfc outcome has nothing to say about delete vs. merge of non-notable schools. If anything, there is significant support in the rfc discussion for merging in general, and I believe that the custom of redirecting primary schools to parent articles remains a valid practice, supported by the WP:ATD-M policy and the WP:RPURPOSE guideline. The information in the article is verifiable, and appears to have a reasonably reliable source, so it meets WP:FAILORG. I'd be happy to hear any arguments against redirects for primary schools, based on Wikipedia policies or guidelines, as I'm not aware of any. --IamNotU (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kanki, Uttar Dinajpur#Education per WP:ATD-M. Non-notable. I have just added the school's name to that article, I think that's all that's needed for now, so a blank-and-redirect can be done, keeping the page's history for future reference. --IamNotU (talk) 01:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. (as suggested). On the basis of the schools compromise, which still does have support despite the confusing rfc. Secondary schools are almost always treated as notable; primary and intermediate schools not. That simple rule avoids contentious AfDs. Please notice it does not refer to the concept of whether or not they are notable--for a boarding school I or someone in the country of the school probably could find references if we needed to, but the compromise means I do not have to look--if there's nothing obviously notable we can just merge/delete. (fwiw, the rfc said nothing about primary schools--it just said that there was no consensus to change the practice of keeping secondary schools, and no consensus to merely refer to schooloutcomes--if we thought that coherent, we could deduce from it there is no consensus to treat primary schools as non-notable, but I thinks it's fair to both sides to go on as before.) DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The only users arguing to keep are a sock, the article's author, and somebody with an extremely small editing history. More to the point, none of them made any policy-based arguments why this should be kept. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Michael Brooks Show

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable podcast. Doesn't past WP:GNG or WP:WEB Sources are pretty much youtube, twitter and other social media links, or articles that aren't talking about the podcast itself. Couldn't find any significant coverage on web either. Questionable notability for the host's article as well, but podcast I definitely don't think passes our notability guidelines. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is ridiculous. This is a significant podcast with over 1000 supporters on Patreon, and substantially more subscribers and viewers. A cursory review of the pages sources show more than social media sources. This recommendation is without basis.- Citationsaurus (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patreon supporters or subscribers/viewers do not contribute to notability on their own. I did review the sources, and a lot of the non social media/podcast links are simply links to biographies of the guest, and like I said in nomination, don't even talk about the podcast itself.

Also, as I mentioned on your talk page, please in the future, don't simply create an account and blank an afD page. These need to stay up for the duration of the process, and then an admin will close it when the time comes. Thank you WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although the podcast has a somewhat substantial following, it fails WP:GNG. --Kirbanzo (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Please note, Citationsaurus is a sock account set up purely for the purpose of contesting this AfD. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am a new editor on here and I made the page in question as I felt it would be better served as a separate page than as an add on to my original page article, I am willing to change this and just add to the original article which is more than adequately sourced for notability if this is what the consensus of editors agree. I am new and am trying to take on board all criticism and have taken the past week to review the guidelines stated. I do feel I meet them, I have included sources to back up the notability, sources from a variety of different places, obviously because of the nature of it being an online podcast, some of the sources are going to be only online ones too. This is a fairly new podcast but one that is growing quickly and is already significant in terms of audience, I am writing as a fan not in any paid interest or link to the show. I am willing to keep improving the article and have more sources to now add to it as citations and will continue to take on board any constructive comments. Thank you. Claireliontamer (talk) 17:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We're not a WP:FANPAGE host, which is what this article reads as. What the hell is the pyramid and is being sent there bad? Why do I have to pay more to listen to a 'post-game' part of the show? Why is there a part of this podcast that's only available to paid subscribers? It isn't on the radio, and 1,000 Patreon supporters isn't getting anywhere near what even a brokered Sunday morning polka show on radio gets as far as listenership. GNG is far from passed here, and since the podcast seems to be a loss leader to get people to buy the paywall stuff, this show isn't easily accesible enough to gain GNG or N any time soon. Nate • (chatter) 06:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a well-sourced article about a podcast with regular listeners. The article can most certainly be edited towards more neutral language where it may be necessary. Those who believe the article should be deleted on this basis would best be reminded that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anybody can edit. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Michael J. Brooks, which is currently pretty scrawny as biographies go. bd2412 T 21:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Silverfern Group

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:CORP yet another advitorial added by some misguided soul who thinks this is Facebook John from Idegon (talk) 12:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched several news archives and couldn't find any in-depth independent coverage of this company. Toohool (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage in non-English press (ie Execc News Institutional, www.fundresearch.de, Portfolio Institutionell, as cited in the current article). Organization operates at an international level, and is covered by international press, so appears to meet WP:CORP.136.0.98.22 (talk) 08:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)— 136.0.98.22 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: None of the three links given by 136.0.98.22 above appear to mention this firm by name. —swpb^{T go beyond} 15:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The company is mentioned in these articles, as cited on the The Silverfern Group page: [42],[43], [44]136.0.98.189 (talk) 07:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)— 136.0.98.189 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Significant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to passing mentions, routine corporate news, and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vikram Gandhi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doubtful notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. References provided are either mentions-in-passing or rely almost exclusively on company produced material and/or quotations. Edwardx (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's true the coverage is here and there but there's a lot of it for a wide variety of roles as an investment exec as well as the ex-husband of a very high profile and notable philanthropist. Ine of their daughters made headlines. His fund launch was fairly recent but there's some coverage on top of all his other work over the years. I think he's worth including and meets guidelines. FloridaArmy (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That someone's former spouse is notable has no bearing, see WP:NOTINHERITED. If you can find WP:SIGCOV, point us to it, or add it to the article. Edwardx (talk) 10:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then show some sources that establish notability without WP:NOTINHERITED. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a promo page on an unremarkable CEO. Being chief executive for nn companies (VSG Capital Advisors and also founded Asha Impact) is almost always GNG / ANYBIO fail, and this is the case here. Wikipedia is not a CV hosting service. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Coffman. Lots of non WP:RS references. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He is a popular subject expert in the media who has been covered by prominent Indian publications such as Live Mint, Hindu Business Line and VC Circle If you Please read his recent article published Huffingtonpost. Vikram Gandhi sets up own investment bank — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxanamathew (talk • contribs) 08:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was To Draft. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Barlow (soccer)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded – original rationale was "Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG." PriceDL (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for deprodding – "Maybe WP:TOOSOON but as likely to meet WP:FOOTY in the not-too-distant future would prefer moving to Draft or Userspace rather than deletion." PriceDL (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is a discussion over here that addresses the concerns for deletion and the keeps. I'm in the boat that this meets WP:NCOLLATH and WP:GNG because of the notability of the MLS SuperDraft, and his national recognitions, which go beyond routine coverage. Cobyan02069 (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft (or userfy) with no prejudice against opposite move. Currently, fails WP:CRYSTAL. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NCOLLATH and while we are talking a bit of Crystal for WP:NFOOTBALL, he meets WP:GNG. NZFC^(talk) 04:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:NFOOTBALL, and despite claims that the subject meets WP:GNG, nobody has added any sources to the article that are not WP:ROUTINE or WP:PRIMARY to demonstrate this is the case. I'm not convinced his success in being drafted is enough to meet WP:NCOLLATH either. Jellyman (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (to all) - simply pointing to a policy isn't a sufficient argument. It needs to be either clear from context (i.e. pointing at WP:CRYSTAL) or otherwise explained. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Clear the player is heading in the right direction if he has signed to New York Red Bulls, but unless he makes his debut this page shouldn't be live as he quite clearly fails NFooty. He clearly fails GNG at the moment also. Govvy (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NCOLLATH and WP:GNG per Cobyan and NZFC Quidster4040 (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per Govvy and WP:TOOSOON, wait until he has played a professional match or until some other notable event occurs. Jay eyem (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is WP:NCOLLATH actually an appropriate guideline for footballers? Why is playing for a college soccer team in the US any different to playing for youth teams of professional clubs in other countries (which wouldn't confer notability)? Number 5 7 11:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good question - technically, it's much more likely the 'football' referred to there is American Football and not rest-of-the-world-except-Canada-and-a-few-others-Football. Anyway, the coverage I find quickly with Google does not appear to constitute "national media attention as an individual, not just as a player". Player has also neither won a national award or been inducted in a hall of fame. Therefore, WP:NCOLLATH does not apply and we should stick to other criteria. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft space/userfy - I'm going to make the same argument I made for Brian White (soccer). This article should not have been written yet - there's no significant media coverage so fails WP:GNG, and since he hasn't played at the major level yet, it's WP:TOOSOON. That being said, the best solution to preserve this work is to move to draftspace with instructions to not resubmit until after he plays a professional game. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be consensus to keep or userfy. Solidifying one of those options would be nice in the next 7 days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 05:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft or Userfy untill WP:NFOOTY is passed which will also generate extra coverage Atlantic306 (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Most, Keep some. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, XFDcloser seems to have eated my original closing statement. The gist was that despite the WP:TRAINWRECK potential, we did get good agreement on most of those. I'm going to keep just those that were called out in any way for special treatment, and delete the rest. For the ones I kept, WP:NPASR applies. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lithuanian Grammy Award winners and nominees

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a single item list, which is insufficient to justify a stand-alone list. The list could be easily replaced with a statement in the parent article for the artist. Dan arndt (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason (as above):

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the other point to note is that Gabriela Lena Frank is an American not Lithuanian. Dan arndt (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all along with, as I know that you know, List of Beninese Grammy Award winners and nominees, which I nominated on the same grounds under its own discussion. To repeat my rationale there, "It seems odd to have a list article with a single entry. Further, given that there's only one person on this list, I suspect that there are no sources to support the notability, such as would satisfy WP:LISTN, of the compiling of all [X-ish] winners and nominees of Grammy Awards into a list." And all the more for the Lithuanian. Good grief. The title of the article isn't "List of Grammy Award nominees with Lithuanian fathers" Largoplazo (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just edited that list as I would edit any list that I found to contain an item that didn't meet the inclusion criterion: I removed the item from the list. So now it's a list with zero items. Largoplazo (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Largoplazo: you may wish to do the same for List of Peruvian Grammy Award winners and nominees, as it also relates to Frank's parents not her.Dan arndt (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per above. Renata (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 10:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 09:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all small lists to List of Grammy Award winners and nominees by country as we do with List of Nobel laureates by country. Störm (talk) 13:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This looks a bit like a Trainwreck waiting to happen. Some of these lists do indeed have just one item; those should probably be deleted. Others, such as List of New Zealand Grammy Award winners and nominees (not one item, but 18, fer crissakes!) down to List of Irish Grammy Award winners and nominees, are quite long lists and should definitely be kept. The following have five or more items and should be kept:
List of Chinese Grammy Award winners and nominees - at least 20 items (needs formatting)

List of New Zealand Grammy Award winners and nominees - 18 items

List of Panamanian Grammy Award winners and nominees - 17 items

All of which are by just one artist - could easily be included on that artists page.

List of Malian Grammy Award winners and nominees - 16 items

List of Dominican Grammy Award winners and nominees - 7 items

All of which are by just one artist - could easily be included on that artists page.

List of Cape Verdean Grammy Award winners and nominees - 6 items

All of which are by just one artist - could easily be included on that artists page.

List of Beninese Grammy Award winners and nominees - 6 items

All of which are by just one artist - could easily be included on that artists page.

List of Irish Grammy Award winners and nominees - 5 items

Almost all of which are taken directly from U2's Awards page

List of Nigerian Grammy Award winners and nominees - 5 items

Only 3 different artists, one of which is a collaboration

List of Uruguayan Grammy Award winners and nominees - 5 items

All of which are by just one artist - could easily be included on that artists page.

By the way, I arrived here by sheer chance; virtually none of the lists have been tagged with AfD tags. Grutness...wha? 13:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, when the article’s were originally listed they all had only one legitimate artist listed. Since then some like the New Zealand list have had marked improvements others however have gone backwards and now have no artists listed. I am happy to go back and strikeout those that now meet a basic list (i.e. multiple listings). Dan arndt (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese Grammy Award winners and nominees would also fall into this category; it's the only one I checked. It looks like the AfD tag there went up on January 27. (I have no opinion on whether all of the lists should be deleted on other grounds.) Dekimasuよ! 21:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. No valid reason to split up an American award by every nationality of each artist who has won or been nominated for the award. I don't see that it matters whether the list of 2 or 200. This list is artist driven; I doubt the topic by such a division is discussed in reliable sources. It seems valid to have lists such as those found in Category:Lists of Nobel laureates by nationality to the prestige of the prize and notoriety the individuals achieve in their countries. Also, as noted on List of Nobel laureates by country, "the list ranks laureates under the country/countries that are stated by the Nobel Prize committee on its website". The only reason for these lists seems to be that the artists just happen to be from those countries without other significance placed on the origin by winning this awards. Is there a need to have such lists for every music and acting award? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: List of Panamanian Grammy Award winners and nominees is for one nominee. Same for Dominican and Cape Verdean.--Auric talk 10:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - All items could be included in a List of Grammy Award nominees by country and just give a heading for each country. No need for separate articles. Note I took the winner name out since all winner are nominated and it is just shorter and cleaner. - Galatz ^Talk 15:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A single List of Grammy Award nominees by country would be a frighteningly long list, especially, for each person, we list all the nominations. Largoplazo (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and I thought about that. At first I was going to suggest categories since they don't seem to exist, but when I look at List of Malian Grammy Award winners and nominees, not all have pages. You could change List of Israeli Grammy Award winners and nominees into Category:Israeli Grammy Award winners and nominees and it would get the people across, but that doesn't apply to every country. - Galatz ^Talk 16:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There should be no category for nominees. At best, diffuse Category:Grammy Award winners since it is a large category. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should nominate Category:Academy Award winners and nominees by nationality or region and all its subcats for deletion. - Galatz ^Talk 22:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I note that an editor has just created List of American Grammy Award winners and nominees, which is essentially trying to create a list of Americans who have won an American music award. Apart from that a number of individuals/bands on that list aren’t even American: George Harrison, Celine Dion, Boy George, Coldplay, Daft Punk. It seems that they were in such a hurry to create the list that they didn’t both checking the entries on the list they were creating. Which is similar to most of the lists above. Just seeking a view as to whether List of American Grammy Award winners and nominees should be included in this discussion or at a separate AfD. Dan arndt (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know someone (you?) already told him they're on the brink of bringing him to admin attention. If, after everything that's been discussed, he's still adding false information to Wikipedia, whether deliberately or recklessly, it's time. Largoplazo (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm proposing all these short (1 or 2 entry) and contriversial articles for speedy deletion as everyone suggested, and some wikipedians suggested they should be added to List of Grammy nominees by country as seperate sections. I hope this will reduce the errors I've created. How does it sound? মাখামাখি (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom/Largoplazo. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These lists do not have content which justifies standalone lists and a merged list fails WP:SALAT: Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value... As well, lists of people by nationality is always difficult (does Rod Stewart get listed as British or English or Scottish or American?) and the inevitable disputes are timesinks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 05:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More lists have been added to this nomination since it started a week ago and after most of the discussion above. Can those ones be specified or perhaps they should be nominated separately? Even if the rationale is the same, it seems sneaky to add them in after people have contributed to the discussion. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
List of Nigerian Grammy Award winners and nominees - To be frank, if it was only "List of Nigerian Grammy Award winners and nominees" that was nominated, I would have voted keep, mainly because reliable sources always cover significantly whenever a Nigerian musician is nominated for the Grammys, see 1, 2, 3. When I say Nigerian musicians, I mean the ones based in Nigeria, not merely of Nigerian descent as properly listed in this article. However, the list will be susceptible to additions of musicians of other nationalities with Nigerian descent, or even Nigerian musicians not based in Nigeria. Ideally, the likes of Seal, Sade Adu and Chammilionaire should not be eligible as rightly seen in the article, but another editor might feel it is disrespectful to their heritage not to include them, and I will definitely revert such edits. So to avoid a potential edit warring situation, I am slightly leaning to a delete. HandsomeBoy (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one item lists, as three wikipedians suggested, and Merge their items on List of Grammy Award winners and nominees by country, there are several wikipedians commenting here, "delete all" without checking the articles even. I suspect it as some kind of revenge theory and unencylopedic. They've earlier collectively protected some non-notable articles which fall under the same criteria as this article. As several wikipedians consented to keep multiple-item articles, I think the 4-5 articles which were emptied, like Peruvian, Lithuanian, must be deleted. There is such articles for Academy Awards also. Like, List of Best Supporting actress winners by age or List of Michigan actors is totally non-notable. So, these articles are much better than these, so should be kept. মাখামাখি (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"It's better than our worst articles" isn't a valid argument for inclusion. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Largoplazo (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: Along with sourcing issues, many are even placed in the wrong lists. MT Train^Discuss 04:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
del all arbitrary classification , i suspect no other source keeps such national lists.- üser:Altenmann >t 02:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all: Especially the page initially nominated for this discussion, which has no entries. All pages appear to possess arbitrary categorization. As well, many of the nations listed, such as Croatia, Norway, and Cape Verde, simply do not have enough entries to justify standalone list-articles. The Cape Verde list, in particular, only features one solo musician who was nominated multiple times. The information presented in the articles can be useful, so long as it is correct. But many of these articles are weak by themselves. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Voz de Aztlan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable website and/or organization. Except for an account of US government harassment of its publisher (footnote 1) and a case of mistaken identity (footnote 4), all the "sources" are the website itself. The "sources" at the website are all cited as examples of how eeeevil it is, in one of the worst cases of original research I've come across in a long time. The website itself has been down since late 2012 and I couldn't find any substantial coverage of it. The SPLC wrote about it in 2001, describing it as a "tiny" group with a website. Stormfront mentions it as well. Nowhere close to notable, either as an organization or as a website. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Zetter

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources Hack (talk) 04:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and I also think VAR isn't notable. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete highest he did was A-League and while he maybe back to do VAR, doesn't meet WP:GNG NZFC^(talk) 05:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, he did appear on the FIFA list at one point but there's not a huge amount of detail (witness his amusing WorldReferee.com profile). Hack (talk) 05:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG, no referee is notable per WP:NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 10:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lacework

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Borderline G11able, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and fails WP:GNG. The SANS 'review' was sponsored by lacework, so this doesn't fill me with confidence for the CSO 'review' either. The AWB listing is a generic marketplace listing and the rest of the listed sources do not even mention the subject. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 04:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. Article is also overly promotional both in tone and content, fails WP:SPIP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH and lack substantial mention of the subject, or fail to establish the encyclopedic notability of the company. Nothing sets this cloud service apart from similar companies.--SamHolt6 (talk) 08:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 05:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Voice Organization

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delayed deletion. Phew! I’m closing this as delete but I’m going to delay the actions until after the inevitable DRV which can be started without pretending to discuss the close with me for forms sake.

Let’s set the scene. VPP discussions do not authorise deletion but its not true to say that only arguments in an AFD can support deletion as the whole point of closing against consensus is that we measure the arguments against wider policy considerations and a cross project consensus on policy has more validity then that from a group of editors enthusiastic about a subject. A good example of this is marginally notable BLPs regularly being deleted because BLP1E out trumps the gng.

So we have a wider consensus from VPP that this class of articles fail NOTDIR and are effectively UNDUE often being spun out of articles because they are too unwieldy. On the other hand we have arguments to keep on the basis that they pass the GNG and are effectively useful, What is also unhelpful was canvassing on the keep side meaning that I had to give the keep arguments a little less weight to balance that out - but even if I did the effect would have been the same as wider project consensus beats local consensus.

It would be extremely disruptive to delete all these articles and links until the argument has gone through the full process which inevitably will include a DRV and, likely, further discussion at ANI before the final consensus is clear. I am therefore delaying enacting the close which ever is the later of until consensus is clear or two weeks. I’m leaving tags on so that interested editors can find the latest links of where the discussion is. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After review, the above close is overturned to Keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adria Airways destinations

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per the result of this discussion, which closed with consensus that Wikipedia should not have airline destination lists, I am nominating 22 lists of airline destinations for deletion. These particular articles are bundled together as members of Star Alliance.

Here is a subsequent discussion that closed with consensus to bundle and AfD articles in Category:Lists of airline destinations. AdA&D 03:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pages in this AfD:

Delete all per community consensus, we are not a travel guide. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And they were deleted by that 16-17 people consensus and later all restored by more thorough and stronger Consensus at AN which you didn't mention. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I wanted to find what airline went where then I would book a travel agent rather than try to find it on Wikipedia. This isn't encyclopedic but can help travelers find which is the best airline to take via Wikivoyage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've never used Wikipedia to search for travel information on what airline flies where, or used it to plan a trip. However, I have used Wikipedia in the same way I've used old airline books: figuring out the scope of an airline, especially looking for interesting destinations that show how an airline connects countries you wouldn't expect to be connected, or how this has changed over time. There's more value to this information than using it to plan a trip. SportingFlyer (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although I already raised this point at the Village Pump and was soundly in the minority, I feel that these pages provide useful encyclopedic information about the "reach" of each airline that would be less useful if reduced to a vague summary. Moreover, I feel that WP:NOTTRAVEL is not really relevant, since these lists are pretty useless as travel guides since they do not indicate routes that are flown. I am not sure of the exact guidelines for "implementing" a consensus at VP, so to the extent that that consensus is binding, I accept and respect the consensus from VP. However, I feel that since that discussion was not tagged on any of the concerned pages, it is worth soliciting opinions from those who may watch these pages but do not follow VP discussions, and thus that it is valid to have a full discussion here. If the usual practice here is to simply accept the result of Village Pump discussions, then I apologize for attempting to rehash the argument. CapitalSasha ~ talk 03:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:INKLESS. -- Acefitt 03:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice how it says "However, there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done". The policy then points to WP:NOTEVERYTHING. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP is not a travel guide. Next thing we will be having take off times Gbawden (talk) 06:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Aside from the fact that this kind of content is outside the scope of an encyclopedia, the individual articles are not that well sourced and prone to be out of date since airline routes change frequently. This stuff is of minimal utility since it's not the kind of thing people come to an encyclopedia for, and has an unacceptably high probability of being incorrect at any given time. Reyk _YO! 08:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, almost all articles are prone to becoming outdated, especially those of geograpical and political topics; the community is responsible for keeping them as updated as possible. See WP:OUTDATED as well regarding your rationale.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions / WP:UPTODATE BillHPike (talk, contribs) 18:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Air Canada destinations is a valid child article of the Destinations section of Air Canada. Just saying "Wikipedia is not a travel guide" is irrelevant since they aren't trying to be. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That article should be deleted as it is practically promotion with all of the company references it has. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRIMARY allows the use of primary sources for statements of fact, such as airline routes. They're being used to state facts; not establish notability. Garretka (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per community consensus and WP:NOTDIR WP:NOTTRAVEL. Ajf773 (talk) 09:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all In every case there is an obvious alternative to deletion – merger into the main page about the airline, which should obviously say something about each airline's network and coverage. This alternative is preferred, per our deletion policy WP:BEFORE, and so we shouldn't even be having this discussion. The airlines in this bundle are mostly quite major and so there is extensive literature about the development and nature of their networks; works such as Airline Network Development in Europe and its Implications for Airport Planning. The route networks of these airlines are therefore notable and so any deficiencies are just a matter of ordinary editing. Our editing policies WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE therefore apply. Andrew D. (talk) 10:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Village Pump discussion and the comments of Ajf773 and Reyk above. Merging is out of the question as well - in many cases these child lists were hived off the main articles because they became so large, and if the information does not belong on WP in stand-alone lists why would we shovel it back into the parent article anyway? Yes, the articles "should obviously say something about each airline's network and coverage", but all we need is a sentence or two stating the airline flies to x number of destinations in y number of countries. The "deficiencies [that] are just a matter of ordinary editing" exist because people aren't going to the effort of doing that ordinary editing - these lists are more examples of WP being unreliable through becoming outdated because of inattention. YSSYguy (talk) 11:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Your statements are in clear contradiction with what you did here [45].--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per consensus at Village Pump, citing WP:NOTDIR. There's nothing to stop any main article referring to broad destinations of an airline service - or indeed unusual ones - (which must constantly change over the years), and citing a url to where that information can be found. If it can't be found, then these lists are just WP:OR. And I say this as someone who generally dislikes seeing content deleted. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all The way I see things, WP:NOTRAVEL involves detailed information regarding each destination, not mentioning them in a list. Furthermore, some of the articles has an introductory section regarding the history of the destinations, and this is certainly encyclopedic.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- One more thing: it is not difficul to find "List of..." articles in Wikipedia (This is just an example). Are you going to AfD them all by invoking WP:NOTDIR?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- please observe the extremely non-neutral notification here. Reyk _YO! 13:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you talking about? I did not encourage people to vote either for Keep or for Delete.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Tons of information related to airline destinations are in risk of being wiped out" is about as blatant as you can get. If I were to go to some noticeboard to say "Tons of clutter regarding airline destinations is in risk of being retained" I'd get yelled at for canvassing, and rightly so. Reyk _YO! 13:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nonsense. It's obviously appropriate for the airlines project to be notified. The notice seems reasonably accurate because hundreds of substantial articles are indeed at risk of being wiped out. Jetstreamer's language is quite restrained in the circumstances. Andrew D. (talk) 13:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had already notified the airlines project by posting a bald statement on the relevant Talk page. Jetstreamer's comment was utterly unnecessary and was far from bald. YSSYguy (talk) 14:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Justified or not, that notification was not the slightest bit neutral. Let's not pretend it was. Lepricavark (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the closer will take that into account. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to hyper-analyze the language of notifications to appropriate stakeholders, let me point out that the RfC listing for the Village Pump discussion was "These 444 pages are lists of every single city each of these airlines fly to. Should Wikipedia be hosting this content or is it a case of Wikipedia is not a directory?" (emphasis from original). Hardly bald either. -- W7KyzmJt ^See Hear _Speak 09:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all These lists seem of more encyclopedic value than the lists on airport pages in that they keep historical destinations served in addition to current. Based on this I'd like to see them stick around. Garretka (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete; redirect and keep the history for partial merges where appropriate. I don't personally agree with the result of the RfC but I will accept that the close was a reasonable reading of the discussion, and never mind that I didn't know about the RfC until after it was closed. What I don't see, however, is that this conclusion necessarily demands the obliteration of all this content and sourcing information forever from the view of editors who might make legitimate encyclopedic use of the content. I expect that this issue is likely to come up most forcefully in articles about historic airlines (look for example at the content and footnotes at Braniff International Airways destinations or Pan Am destinations), but in all cases, information about evolution of route structure is essential to a full understanding of what happened to the airline. Note on many of these lists the reference to substantive sources mixed in with other more list-like sources. Should Wikipedia airline articles include long bald lists of every airport served? Perhaps not, if we believe the RfC. But should the articles refer to and describe the origination and changes in route structure? Absolutely. Can this content help? In some cases, possibly. Is there some compelling BLP-like reason it should be removed from edit history nonetheless? Not that I can see. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this AfD is being run as a test case or if we will be doing this many more times on a case-by-case basis; anyway Pan Am destinations has been mentioned above so I will discuss that. I agree that "information about evolution of route structure is essential to a full understanding of what happened to the airline", but there is nothing in the Pan Am destinations list that aids understanding of what happened to Pan American World Airways. There is nothing in that list that tells me that Pan Am operated to some of its Central- and South American destinations for six decades. There is nothing in that list that tells me that Pan Am operated an extensive West German domestic network because only one airline each of France, the UK, the US and the USSR could operate to Berlin. There is nothing in that list that tells me that Gander in Canada and Shannon in Ireland were purely refuelling stops for Transatlantic flights and were dropped once aircraft improved to the point that they could fly nonstop. There is nothing in that list that tells me that Pan Am got into financial trouble partly because (apart from serving Hawaii and Alaska) it was a purely international airline and was competing with domestic airlines that started flying internationally and which had all those domestic passengers to whom they could offer a seamless service. There is nothing in that list that tells me that a lot of routes were dropped in the 1970s to save money. There is nothing in that list that tells me that Pan Am sold all of its Pacific Ocean routes to another airline in order to raise money. There is nothing in that list that tells me that Pan Am finally began US domestic operations when it was allowed to take over another carrier. There is nothing in that list that tells me that Pan Am sold its London Heathrow routes to raise more money. All of this information is in the parent article. The list (any list) does not convey any useful information about the evolution of Pan Am's (or any other airline's) route structure - all there is, is a list of names; there is no context to any of it. YSSYguy (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's why the parent article exists! Facts without context are bad, but so is context without facts! CapitalSasha ~ talk 22:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many flights, by themselves, come close to satisfying WP:GNG. For example, UAL 143^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]. Since individual flights, for which the details are omitted from the lists of destinations, verge on notable, the lists of destinations should be retained.

References

^ https://timemail.in/about/
^ Schilder, Aaron; Keys, Danielle (2012-05-22). "United Airlines to begin direct Denver-to-Tokyo flights". The Denver Post. Retrieved 2018-01-30.
^ Booth, Darren (2013-06-10). "Sake Toast: United Starts Denver-Tokyo 787 Flight". CNBC. Retrieved 2018-01-30.
^ "Special Report: United Airlines and the quest for a Denver-Tokyo flight". Denver Business Journal. Retrieved 2018-01-30.
^ "成田からの直行便就航一周年！スポーツとビールの街、アメリカコロラド州「デンバー」とは". HuffPost Japan (in Japanese). 2014-08-05. Retrieved 2018-01-31.

BillHPike (talk, contribs) 22:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC) (Edited to add Japanese language source BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC))[reply]

In this day and age, it is possible to find news stories about pretty-much everything - house fires, car crashes, a lost cat found (yes, national news in Australia) - so the reporting by Denver news media outlets of a new flight from Denver and a report of airline news by a guy whose job it is to report airline news does not "come close to satisfying WP:GNG", however let's say for the sake of argument that it does. If we take information that isn't notable, but almost is, and we omit the details that make this information "verge on notable" and lump what's left together, somehow it becomes notable? YSSYguy (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In WP:OUTCOMES, it is noted that articles that fail to individually satisfy notability criteria are often merged together to form a single article that will survive AfD. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing an addition or cancelation of airline routes which has significant economic impact to the cities/countries served to "lost cat found" stories is disingenuous and not helpful or relevant to this discussion. --Oakshade (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: The DEN-NRT flight was the primary topic of at least 20 articles in the Denver Bussiness Journal over a 4 year period. The local coverage of this flight has been substantial and ongoing. The national/international coverage has also been non-trivial. Furthermore, formerly lost cats have survived AfD. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 06:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is going into WP:WAX. We don't need a complete list of destinations, the info can easily be summarized in the main articles about the airline. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: They make a very useful tool for research on an airlines route network and all on the one page. Not all airline websites have their destinations easy to find. So much historical information will also be lost with them all being deleted forever. Particular info of when a route was started and when one was terminated for instance. CHCBOY (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all: Airlines' destinations are significant and these articles are verifiable and encyclopedic. The previous discussion on Village Pump is irrelevant as it did not follow standard Wikipedia procedure to reach consensus on article deletion. -- W7KyzmJt ^See Hear _Speak 03:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, valid WP:SPLITLIST of the parent airline articles. Destinations are an integral facet of airlines. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, valid lists, and could be expanded with reasons for opening/closing to make it even more encyclopedic. Where an airline flies to is a central part of what they are, just like listing what planes they use. I can't see how the lists are useful as travel guides, so I fail to see the point of mentioning WP:NOTTRAVEL. —Kusma (t·c) 09:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Each list meets the criteria for a stand alone list, with a clearly definined inclusion criteria on a notable topic. Picking one off the list at random (Air Canada) you easily find coverage of routes in news sources ([46], [47]), which can be used to expand the article. Instead of looking at ways to delete all these lists, the reverse can be applied: There are two Featured Lists (example), so there is the potentinal to have 442 more Featured Lists, instead of 442 deleted articles. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks pretty WP:ROUTINE to me. When adding destinations announcements are made to promote the airline. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The articles of every company borders promotion and we should mind WP:NPOV. If the addition of future services is controversial it can be easily solved by not adding them into these lists until they had already started. WP:WAIT can apply. Conversely, doy you think that the inclusion of termination dates is promotional? I don't think so.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE appears to apply to articles about events, of which these are not. Furthermore, these articles are from reliable sources independent of the subject. Occasionally destinations won't be announced independent of the subject, but that doesn't render the entire list un-notable. SportingFlyer (talk) 04:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no real deletion rationale other than one of these spurious hidden discussions that seem to represent 'consensus'. I read it and it seems that these lists are supposed to be deleted for providing "too much information". I seriously question the validity of this, and since the lists are very good, and include some featured lists, I say keep them. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 11:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC) — WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]
Which list is featured of the ones listed for deletion here? I don't see any. AdA&D ★ 19:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None of the 22 lists requested to be deleted have been featured. However, these specific lists were requested to be deleted since all airline lists closed with "consensus." I'm happy to hear an argument on why the formerly featured List of Cathay Dragon destinations should not be deleted, but the Adria Airlines should. SportingFlyer (talk) 10:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per WP:SPLITLIST from parent pages and for meeting WP:GNG and lack of any valid deletion rationale apart from extra-policy deletion discussion at VP.

I am advising the closer to note that the Village Pump discussion is a local consensus of few people and shouldn't influence this AfD in anyway the same way "the consensus" lacked power to delete such vast number of article and how the action was overturned by this overwhelming consensus at AN
Referencing VP "consensus" as reason of deletion is invalid deletion rationale because if the consensus was effective to caused their deletion then we wouldn't have come here at all, they would've been left as deleted by that consensus.
Per WP:SPLITLIST These articles mostly were spin off from their parent airline articles because, if incorporated they will cause airline articles to become incredibly large beyond recommend size and for accessibility issues.
These articles passes WP:GNG and are sourced. Example, Air India, EgyptAir. (Also noteworthy, many sources are already provided here by many users.).
Wikipedia is not limited by paper and host voluminous material way beyond that can be found in traditional encyclopedias. it acts as gazzetter, almanacs and general interest encyclopedia to preserve knowledge and facts for posterity. (Updated 14:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)) –Ammarpad (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All- as per WP:NOTTRAVEL & WP:NOTCATALOG. This is an encyclopedia, not a website selling plane tickets.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please explain how an article listing destinations sells tickets?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per the consensus obtained at the RfC mentioned in the nomination; "consensus [is that] Wikipedia should not have these lists". Procedurally, the outcome of the linked AN discussion should be followed, and that is indeed done here. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:CONLIMITED and WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE apply here. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Billhpike. That was project-wide consensus at a properly advertised RfC on VPP. There is hardly a stronger level of consensus imaginable. Also, I don't think it's constructive to suggest that community consensus on this matter has changed in the mere four days that have passed since the RfC was closed. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been a precedent set I'm unaware of for basing consensus for controversial article deletions on RfCs at the Village Pump? To my knowledge AfD is the only appropriate venue for discussion of such deletions. "Properly advertised" or not, that discussion didn't attract nearly as much attention and discussion as this one has over a much shorter time. It's not that consensus has changed -- this discussion is more likely to be indicative of a broader consensus than that one. -- W7KyzmJt ^See Hear _Speak 09:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, W7KyzmJt, AfD is the only appropriate venue for deletion discussions. But the consensus on what kinds of articles we should and shouldn't have has always been forged elsewhere as well. Are you going to tell me that the WP:N policy is moot because decisions on ultimately keeping or deleting an article are made at AfD? Of course not. AfD makes these decisions, but it makes them based on policies and guidelines. By the way, the RfC didn't close as "these articles should be deleted". It closed as "Wikipedia should not have these lists". It was a discussion on the breadth of WP:N/NOT, not a deletion discussion. The usual advice applies to you; if you think that the RfC overstepped its boundaries, rise the issue at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We are at this point procedurally because there was a consensus Wikipedia should not have these lists, which referred the consensus to the deletion process. There is no current consensus on whether these lists should be deleted, though. In fact there is currently a 2-to-1 in favor of "keep." I believe a "keep" vote here essentially means the user believes these lists belong on Wikipedia. I think as more people have become aware of the last discussion through the deletion process, myself included, the original consensus may not be as strong as it appeared. SportingFlyer (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re your statement "consensus on what kinds of articles we should and shouldn't have has always been forged elsewhere as well. Are you going to tell me that the WP:N policy is moot because decisions on ultimately keeping or deleting an article are made at AfD?": Except that there was no new policy or policy change under discussion. The discussion was about how existing policies, such as WP:N, applied to these articles. That's no different than a discussion about whether a biographical article does not meet WP:NBIO and should be deleted. And that type of discussion is only appropriate for AfD. -- W7KyzmJt ^See Hear _Speak 09:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete all as transient, directory information. Mangoe (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The information that an airline has been flying to a certain place is not transient, see also the FL List of Braathens destinations. —Kusma (t·c) 10:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so you found one FL, these can be demoted over time as policies and guidelines change on Wikipedia (that article was promoted in 2010). It is sad yes, but what was once acceptable today can become taboo tomorrow. The good takeaway is that the info in that article can be used to promote another article to FA. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is transient the information related to defunct airlines. Honestly, I'd like to see better arguments for deletion votes.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - This is a valid list and I don't see how WP:NOTTRAVEL applies as this is not travel advice. And as BillHPike states above, these destinations/flights in themselves frequently pass GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that looking up which airlines took you to x location would be travel advice. These locations also frequently change which shifts the focus of editors to maintaining these articles rather than focus on others that need the attention more. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the contributors who took those articles to FL status think, but as an editor who worked hard to bring some articles to GA it is rather frustating to see people that never edited them voting for removing them for good. The spirit of Wikipedia is to improve the current content, not to destroy it.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but Wikipedia changes... those articles that are "destroyed" are reborn as other FA/GA articles. It was once acceptable for example, to do things that made an article GA or FA class which have since been voted against. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia welcomes editors who focus on Niche topic areas. See WP:BUILDWP#niche BillHPike (talk, contribs) 19:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:NOTDIR. It takes some serious mental gymnastics to argue that lists of all destinations of over 400 airlines somehow belongs in an encyclopedia. Airline articles should just state Air ___ has 99 destinations and provide an external link to the airline's official directory. Arguments concerning the featured status of various airline lists do not apply to this AfD, as none of these lists are featured. Further, any arguments related to the quality of these lists fail to address the reason this AfD was started in the first place, which is that these lists, regardless of quality, are out of scope for an encyclopedia. AdA&D ★ 19:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Destinations served by airlines have significant economic and frequently cultural impact on the locations served, hence so many are themselves receive in-depth coverage with they area added or removed. These aren't just meaningless lists. --Oakshade (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They don't belong in a general purpose encyclopedia, but they do belong in a specialist one focusing on travel. Wikipedia is actually both. And OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that proves my point, for example thousands of pages in Category:Sports records and statistics that need frequent updating and are out of place in a general purpose encyclopedia. —Kusma (t·c) 20:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all: WP:INKLESS. Keep all or merge into the airline articles themselves. One or the other. If we're going to delete these lists, we'd have to delete every other list on WP. These are mostly very well referenced and up to date, and a lot of hard work has gone into making sure that is the case. What is the purpose of removing this information, then? Wikipedia has come a long way since it's inception -- and if it can be a source of greater information why not let it be? WP:NOTTRAVEL certainly does not apply, as it's not even close to being a travel guide. I'm okay with merging them with the actual airline articles themselves (potentially as a collapsible section)...but removing them altogether? Absolutely not. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 21:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit much saying "we'd have to delete every other list on WP" if these lists are not kept per WP:OSE and WP:WAX. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all and I encourage the eventual closer to keep in mind the community consensus on this matter and keep in mind that after the recent AN thread, this is going to attract more members of the community who care about this topic, but that it cannot replace the community consensus reflected at the village pump RfC. Arguments that fly in the face of that consensus should be disregarded. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My sense is that it is a bit of a dangerous precedent to have Village Pump discussions be used to delete articles rather than the normal AFD process...my sense is that more people would be attracted here from the AfD notice on the pages themselves than from the AN thread, and the usual way we get consensus to delete things on Wikipedia is to post notice on the things to be deleted themselves, so the part of the community that that attracts should be the one that makes the decision. CapitalSasha ~ talk 01:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is carried out precisely because of the outcome of the original RfC. The result of this should not be tied to that of the original RfC.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I argued for overturning the speedy deletions. Your sense on that is correct. What you are completely wrong on, however, is that local consensus can override a clear community consensus at the village pump or similar forum: it can't. The keep arguments here are ignoring the fact that there is an unambigious community consensus against having these articles, and thus are arguing against policy and should be ignored unless they can bring up specific points that were not addressed in the RfC. Arguing that this local consensus can somehow overturn a positive consensus somewhere else (as opposed to no consensus) is not how we run this project. This is not the RfC round 2. If substantial concerns that were not there can be raised for individual articles, sure, but I don't see that here. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is not permitting the editors that participated in the RfC to voice their opinion here. Again, the RfC was closed and this is a new instance according to the AN closure.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Local consensus cannot override community consensus. If you are intent on relitigating the RfC, your !vote should have zero weight when closed. That's how consensus works. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In closing the RFC, Fish and karate noted that the lists were inappropriate because of excessive detail and maintenance required.

With respect to excessive detail, I would argue that neither WP:NOTDIR nor WP:INDISCRIMINATE are applicable here apply due to the extensive third party coverage of airline destinations (see my comment above). For both of these policies, the principle of Expressio unius est exclusio alterius means that, to the extent these policies are ambiguous, they must be interpreted as indicating a community consensus contrary to the results of the RFC.

With respect to the maintenance required to maintain these lists, this argument is not listed in WP:DEL#REASON. It again follows that there is a community consensus contrary to the results of the RFC.

If the RFC had proposed updating WP:NOT (aka WP:DEL14) or the list at WP:DEL-REASON, I would accept the results of the RFC as community consensus. However, the RFC neither proposed to update these policies nor was closed with a consensus to update these policies, so no new community consensus was established. Instead, the RFC amounted to a local consensus in a improper venue.

(I'll accept trout for WP:WIKILAWYERING) BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Billhpike, we are at this AfD because the result of the RfC is community consensus whether you choose to accept it or not. The closing admin is the one to make that call, and in this case they have. If you think the administration acted in error, please follow the instructions at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Besides, not every RfC results in altered wording at some policy. If they did, we would have a huge problem with WP:CREEP and some pretty volatile policies. How policies are implemented is determined by consensus too. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clearly accepted at this point that the closing admin acted in error. Consensus on WP:AN was to restore the articles and go through proper procedures at AfD. -- W7KyzmJt ^See Hear _Speak 09:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, W7KyzmJt. The AN thread was about the actions of Beeblebrox who was not the closing admin. AN found no fault with the close of the original RfC and that wasn't overturned. It was found that Beeblebrox had overstepped his boundaries, not that the RfC had. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting directly from the AN conclusion: "There is a strong consensus in this thread that Beeblebrox's deletions of the 444 pages in Category:Lists of airline destinations should be undone, and the pages listed there should be AfD'd in an orderly manner" (emphasis mine). Furthermore the option that received by far the most !votes stated "The RFC at the village pump did not serve to establish consensus for mass deletion. The pages should be restored and normal AfD procedures followed." I don't know how much clearer agreement you can get that the RfC did not establish consensus. -- W7KyzmJt ^See Hear _Speak 23:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBalloni, you keep insisting that "local consensus cannot override community consensus," implying that the Village Pump represents "the community" but AfD is somehow "local." AfD is the only appropriate venue for discussion of (controversial) article deletions -- as an admin, you are certainly aware of this. This listing has already attracted far more substantial discussion than the one at VP. And your borderline-hostile attitude here (telling a user he is "completely wrong" and his "!vote should have zero weight"; asking another "What are you even talking about?") is unbecoming of an admin. -- W7KyzmJt ^See Hear _Speak 06:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Tony, but don’t think he has been hostile. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 07:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear to me that the Village Pump discussion is a better representation of "the community" than the discussion here. The normal protocol for article deletion is that a tag is posted on the article and thus people who are watching the article are notified of the discussion. To get consensus in another venue for the deletion of an article, without that tag, strikes me as circumventing the usual channels for getting consensus to delete an article. CapitalSasha ~ talk 01:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's being labeled as "community consensus" above is arguably the definition of WP:CONLIMITED. A vast majority of editors including myself rarely pay any attention to the Village Pump let alone know it even exists. Volunteer editors are too busy either creating new articles or improving existing ones. That Village Pump discussion went on for 23 days and there were only 21 editors who gave a definitive "yes" or "no" opinion. This batch AfD has barely been open for 2 days and there's already been 29 definitive opinions on the subject. If that's not evidence of a limited group of users who pay close attention of the "meta" discussions coming to their small group conclusion without wide community input, I don't know what is. --Oakshade (talk) 04:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is the exact opposite of how CONLIMITED works. Village pump discussions hold more weight than individual AfDs. They set policy, and AfDs are how we apply policy to individual articles. That the people arguing keep here don't know how Wikipedia policy and consensus works is not a reason to ignore the community consensus on these topics, especially given that the majority of the people who will be commenting here are those with a vested interest in the topic rather than the broader community at the village pump. The closer is required by policy to ignore those opinions that do not fit with the established community consensus. No one is saying that an RfC at the village pump should have deleted the articles. What is being argued is that per that consensus, we should delete them in that AfD. WP:CONLIMITED actually works against keeping them, under every normal reading of Wikipedia policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:CONLIMITED,

“

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.

”

As far as I can see, on 1 January 2018 Beeblebrox left just these [48] [49] two notifications regarding the VPP discussion, and they seemingly went unnoticed for the participants of the involved Wikiprojects. I don't see that Beeblebrox notified a wider audience, as is the case with this AfD (actually, the VPP discussion attracted far less participants than this one). Following WP:CCC, which was cited several times in this very page, can you please explain how the VPP discussion set precedent when we are here because of the result of an AN discussion that actually challenged the VPP outcome? If, whatever the result, this AfD is not taken as community consensus, having so far attrated more participants than the original VPP discussion, can you please tell me what consensus is?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's because VPP is the universally accepted "Wider audience" on the English Wikipedia for policy discussions. There is literally no better place to have that discussion from a policy basis. This AfD is the limited local consensus that lacks notification, not the other way around. The WikiProject people who want to ignore community consensus here are citing CCC: it doesn't work like that, especially so soon after a VPP RfC closed. If you want to challenge that consensus, you start a new RfC to form community consensus. You don't make an AfD where the only people who are going to see it are the people that care about keeping the topic the basis for community policy. So, if you want to change the consensus, start a new RfC. Until then, the closer should ignore everything that goes against that closure. That is what they are mandated to do under our deletion process. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having this discussion after the closure of the one at AN says otherwise.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The AfD is the proper place to discuss article deletion. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment versus Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion. Also see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes: "Lists are likely to be kept if they are limited in scope, are based upon concrete criteria for inclusion, have verifiable content, and have a logical reason for their construction." The consensus at the RfC is a limited policy consensus on this topic alone, possibly by biased authors (the starter of the discussion speedy deleted these articles before they were stopped due to policy reasons). If anything, the proper procedure should be keeping these articles for now based on either a consensus to keep or no consensus, and opening up a new discussion on how to reform these articles to survive a deletion. Articles which are flagrantly in violation of the WP:NOTDIRECTORY should be nominated for deletion next, as opposed to articles by airline alliance. SportingFlyer (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favour of keeping them all, just in case you're replying to me.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I was replying to the thread (the one above yours), not you specifically. I'm also in favor of keeping them all. Just stumbled upon some very good destination pages which should be emulated which again remind me of those special airline books you used to have to buy. SportingFlyer (talk) 02:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess for me the argument would be that the discussion at WP:VPP was inappropriate to begin with as a violation of the "federalism" that is implicit in Wikipedia's practice of having deletion discussions be centered around the articles that are actually going to be deleted, rather than at a central location without notification to the people who have been editing the article. I am not expert enough in Wikipedia policies to cite a particular guideline here, but consider the scenario in which someone posted an RFC at WP:VPP asking if a particular article should be deleted. That person would (I think) be told that WP:VPP is an inappropriate venue for that discussion, and that the discussion should be taken to AfD, even though the consensus at WP:VPP would be "superior" to any consensus developed at AfD. It seems that this class of articles is not broad enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia guideline -- thus the discussion at VPP was not, in my mind, a policy discussion, but rather an AfD in the wrong venue. CapitalSasha ~ talk 21:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Airline destinations are discussed in numerous reliable sources. The Village Pump is not the place to delete articles. AfD is. That Village Pump discussion should never have even happened there and this should be discussed here on its own merits. Smartyllama (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What are you even talking about? Of course the village pump discussion should have happened to create a standard here before going to individual AfDs. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion is over, this is a new one, and this is the one that will set precedent, mostly considering that a number of destinations articles had been kept before.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That holds little weight per WP:CCC. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're implying that the "consensus" reached at VP over this issue is as valid as the one that will eventually be reached here. AfD is the only appropriate venue for discussion of (controversial) article deletions, and this listing has already attracted far more substantial discussion than the one at VP. -- W7KyzmJt ^See Hear _Speak 06:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a sidenote, the closure admin stated that ″the AfD closer should take the RfC closure into account when closing the AfD's″.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. An airline's reach is notable. Destinations are frequently mentioned in specialized encyclopedic books (Airlines of the World, etc.) It would be nice if more of a narrative format existed. SportingFlyer (talk) 05:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all – The destinations of airlines are WP:Notable, enough to have various sources about them even outside Wikipedia. Leo1pard (talk) 08:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - While individual destinations are notable, airline schedules change on a fairly regular basis. Encyclopedic content, however, does not, nor should it. There are a handful of outstanding airlines scheduling resources that can provide up to date schedules for any airlines. In addition, nearly all airlines have their own scheduling resources, which should absolutely be primary. Wikipedia is not the place for it.Clepsydrae (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Schedules change often, destinations much less so. It's big news for a city when they gain or lose an airline. These pages also contain historical destinations, which are much less readily available. CapitalSasha ~ talk 19:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as per WP:PAPER. There are many more lists less notable and more worthy of deletion than this.1.02 editor (talk) 04:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OSE 18:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

As I stated above, WP:PAPER points to WP:NOTEVERYTHING. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that dismissing arguments per WP:OSE/WP:WAX is a good thing in this discussion. The reason is that we are not looking at an individual article, but at a whole category of articles. Here, we are basically trying to determine whether airline destination lists should be in Wikipedia. "Should Wikipedia include this type of articles?" is a difficult question, and answering it by looking at what types of articles Wikipedia generally includes seems a sane way of doing it. As there is no other encyclopaedia comparable to Wikipedia (which is both a general purpose encyclopaedia and a collection of highly specialised ones for particular subtopics), we can't hide behind arguments such as "not usually found in encyclopaedias". Deleting these lists, which have exactly the same problems (or not) as, say, List of programs broadcast by American Broadcasting Company, will do quite some harm, and no advantage of doing so has been given. —Kusma (t·c) 10:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is your personal point of view though, what if I say that List of programs broadcast by American Broadcasting Company isn't needed? It boils down to a WP:ILIKEIT argument. Here might be a good reason, our sister project Wikivoyage could use things like these as it can be helpful to travelers. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your first point -- which well-sourced non-OR lists we should have seems to be a ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT thing, as we don't have any much better general principle about what belongs and what doesn't. I don't believe there is a convincing argument that explains why TV guides should be acceptable, but destination lists should not. As to your other point, I don't know whether Wikivoyage would like these lists, but I guess they would remove all of the interesting and encyclopaedic information about when or why routes were opened or about former destinations (all of that has no place in a travel guide). —Kusma (t·c) 09:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Airline routes attract considerable media attention (in both the general and specialist media), and are even the subject of conferences (eg, [50]). They also discussed in books on airlines. As such, listings of individual airlines' routes are a notable topic. Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This AFD including Singapore Airlines destinations, which I was reading. The purpose of this article appears to be because of WP:SUBARTICLE. As such, the list could be merged into the Singapore Airlines article, but would make it much too unwieldy. Wikiproject Airlines does allow or even specify destinations section. I believe there should be a Wikipedia-wide conference to decide across the board what should be included. It seems that some areas of Wikipedia allow very detailed minutae and some areas don't. The destinations list appears to be average in the minutiae scale and, therefore, should be retained for now. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per NOTCATALOG. As for the argument that this is useful information: not very, since it's better served by the constantly updated websites of the airline. This also borders on OR. Sjö (talk) 06:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The constantly updated websites of the airline" have exactly that problem: they are constantly updated, and often do not include historical destinations. That makes the airline websites a lot less useful than these lists. As to WP:OR: typical high-quality sources have been provided further up in this discussion. —Kusma (t·c) 07:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sjö, how does Pan Am constantly update its destinations on its website when it stopped existing in 1991 when websites didn't exist?--Oakshade (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all These lists are good sources for the travellers and even for the airline companies, since they are even not aware of where they fly to. There are also valuable information that the airline companies flied previously but cancelled for now. These destinations are included in the lists with official references which are reliable, valuable and encyclopedic. So we can call it wikipedic. Ushuaia1 (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - This lists provide usefull information for readers and make Wikipedia being more than just an online eencyclopedia, but an usefull informational tool for readers. FkpCascais (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we are just an online encyclopedia and not much more. In particular, we are not a travel guide and our limited scope means that nothing stays for simply being useful. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the alternative, we could have route maps instead of destination lists. For example, I have no plans to ever fly to Angola butright now I would like to know where TAAG Angolan Airlines flies. Do they fly to South America? How many European cities? Just 1 or 2 or more, like 6? To they fly to the Middle East and India? This kind of information is encyclopedic. Vanguard10 (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's an excellent idea! CapitalSasha ~ talk 05:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep all~~ - I wonder why you nominated only 22 lists of airline destinations for deletion? Why only the members of Star Alliance? What about Sky Team and ME3 carriers? I hope there is no malicious intentions --Ushuaia1 (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You already commented above. And the reasons for this nomination including just 22 articles is in the link at the top.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per community consensus, including WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL.Charles (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What community consensus are you talking about? The community consensus was to AfD the articles after the VP discussion was challenged, and consensus will be reached once this discussion is closed.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you read the prior discussion you will see that editors gave rationales for not having these lists. One idea that I still think could work out would be to copy the lists over to Wikivoyage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History, fleet and destinations are the most important aspects of the arlines. FkpCascais (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - these should not be moved to Wikivoyage as they are not travel guide-related. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These lists tell you which airline will take you where, how is that not travel guide related? It fits WP:NOTDIRECTORY under "current schedules", any historic stops can be put into prose on the main article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's travel related, it's not travel guide related! I've never seen this information in any travel guide I've ever read, since travel guides don't list all of the places one specific airline can take you. You can't use these lists to plan a trip, since they don't tell you anything about the timetable, or even which routes the airline flies from what airport! Plus, travel guides are never broken out by airline. What these lists do is tell you the geographic scope of the airline, both currently and historically. This is important and encyclopedic! Furthermore, WP:NOTDIRECTORY's current schedule examples refer to television broadcasts, which change constantly. While these are also "current schedules," they do not fit that criteria in the same way: these lists are not timetables, nor do they change all that often - and when they do, they satisfy the notability criteria. SportingFlyer (talk) 04:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would say these are not "current schedules": the correct analogy is to lists of TV shows hosted by a given network, which Wikipedia has! CapitalSasha ~ talk 06:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - "currently scheduled destinations" may be the proper term, not "current schedule." SportingFlyer (talk) 06:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not Wikipedia can be used to select an airline is completely moot. WP:USEFUL ness is not a reason to create or keep an article. AadaamS (talk) 06:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My argument wasn't about usefulness - "let's keep the directory/travel data since it's useful!" - it's that these articles are neither directory (not a catalogue of current schedules) nor travel (not found in travel guides) at all, and therefore deleting them on that basis is unreasonable. SportingFlyer (talk) 08:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"These lists tell you which airline will take you where"; not directly they won't. They don't say "city A is connected with city B". They show how an airline has changed over time, have they shrunk? Have they grown? Destinations, both present and historical, are among the most notable information for airlines. Garretka (talk) 12:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - Notable subject and valid child article of the respective airline article -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - as all articles violate the explicitly named WP:NOTTRAVEL. These articles should be migrated to Wikivoyage. AadaamS (talk) 06:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, I disagree - these are not articles you would find in any normal travel guide and therefore Wikivoyage is not the proper place for them. SportingFlyer (talk) 08:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikivoyage does not host articles about airlines. Given that airlines are notable (and therefore eligible for inclusion here) and destinations are the core of their operations, it is natural to have them split from the parent article.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Obviously Wikipedia changes over time. Similar AfDs have occurred over a decade ago here with eerily similar arguments on both sides: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Airlines_destinations/archive and here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Airlines_destinations. SportingFlyer (talk) 08:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. An airline's presence at a given airport is frequently a subject of local press coverage since it is an important part of a city's long-range infrastructure. Furthermore, information of this kind tells a great deal about the airlines' market areas, an important part of any comprehensive coverage. Sure, the same information could be extracted by trawling through all the different airport articles which all have a list of the airlines serving it, but sorting the information by airline is a fully valid way of summarizing the information as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just want to opine that taking this to Village Pump with an RFC was out of process (wrong venue) and whatever happened there should be disregarded. I don't have a strong opinion here although the NOTDIRECTORY argument probably has wheels. Carrite (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Studio Trigger. Killiondude (talk) 05:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promare

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No actual coverage of this not-yet-existing film, just coverage of the announcement. Way WP:TOOSOON for a Wikipedia article; for all we know the film may not be notable when it comes out. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON. Meatsgains^(talk) 03:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'd previously prodded this and it had been deprodded by Narutolovehinata5. As far as I can establish the only information available about the film at this point is the announcement. It is WP:TOOSOON, per WP:NFF. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Anachronist: @Meatsgains: @Curb Safe Charmer: @AngusWOOF: Considering it will probably become notable anyway soon and will probably be released soon, would a redirect to Trigger (company) be an acceptable alternative to deletion? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That'd be fine. Also move to Draft. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that "it will probably become notable anyway." We can't make WP:CRYSTAL assumptions like that. Either it's notable, or it isn't. I have no objection to a redirect, though. If that's agreeable to you, go ahead and do that and we can close this discussion. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support a redirect for the time being. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not contesting that we probably don't need the page yet - after all, there's no information about it to write - but it isn't a film, and I'm not sure why this deletion page seems to think it is. 67.168.85.228 (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is described as an "anime project". Whether that is a film or a TV show or an OVA to be released on DVD, it doesn't really matter, they amount to the same thing. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. You're right, it doesn't matter to this. However, I still found it strange that this deletion page insistently referred to it as a film and categorized it as such, so I thought I'd say something. 67.168.85.228 (talk) 06:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Studio Trigger for the time being. This could have been done unilaterally and I doubt anyone would have objected. —Xezbeth (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weatherport hut

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable; references to company site or mere mention; advertising article DonFB (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The two non-primary sources are weak at best. I looked around for more, without luck. At least one of the editors, if not both, are very likely undisclosed paid editing accounts. Note Baileyrory (talk · contribs) and compare "Rory Bailey" found at http://www.architectmagazine.com/people/weatherport. This is simply a promotional article. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 05:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan C. Stan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject lacks notability and significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ellipsis Entertainment

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

co-producing one film is insufficient notability for an article DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP, no references available that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of reliable in-depth coverage indicates a WP:NCORP failure.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Duperreault

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN business person, everything is mill "coverage" if it can even be called that and is largely PR/primary. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 04:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yes, agree per nom. Tacyarg (talk) 04:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. A quick search brings up this NY Times article in which Duperreault is the primary subject. CEO of one of the biggest companies in the world, seems notable enough to me. Agree that advert tag is def warranted though. --Ha-joon S (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's largely an interview...CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So? Wikipedia:Interviews says interviews can demonstrate notability. The potential problem with interviews is the reliability of individual statements, not the value of the source toward GNG. —swpb^{T go beyond} 16:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CEO of a very large company like AIG is notable. Here's a better source [51]. However, a paid editor contributed heavily to this article so it needs cleanup.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure being the CEO of AIG makes him exempt from A7 but I've yet to find one source that features independent coverage of him. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 02:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG, but it does need cleanup from a paid editor. --IndyNotes

How so? None of it appears to be coverage. It's largely primary sources and at best MILL. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to existing refs, which I think are sufficient, there are also:

http://www.insurancehalloffame.org/laureateprofile.php?laureate=147 (which looks like an ANYBIO qualifier)

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/business/dealbook/aig-brian-duperreault-ceo.html

https://www.ft.com/content/134d9642-36ed-11e7-99bd-13beb0903fa3

DonFB (talk) 09:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, but needs removal of obvious promotional tone and text. DonFB (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Casting (performing arts). Killiondude (talk) 05:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cast member

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just a refugee from a WP:DICTIONARY. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

merge/redirect somewhere. The problem right now is that cast disambigs to here, but really it needs to go somewhere in the whole play/film/etc. production article structure; I'm just not sure where. Mangoe (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's time to either create Cast (performing arts) or simply move Casting (performing arts) there and refocus/expand that article? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Casting (performing arts). Makes the most sense in relation to the subject._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to PokerFace. Killiondude (talk) 05:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Lang

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very little claim to notability, just someone who has happened to win a lot of money on TV game shows. BangJan1999 15:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with PokerFace, as that's what she's known for. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BangJan1999 21:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very little but nevertheless sufficient notability to retain article. --В²C ☎ 22:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. —swpb^{T go beyond} 19:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to PokerFace Her notability stems solely from her winning a million dollar prize, which seems like a classic case of WP:BLP1E. I don't think the details of her win are significant or encyclopedic, but I do see why people might search for her name. That's why I think a redirect is preferable to deleting the article. Papaursa (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to PokerFace per WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E Her sole claim to notability is being on this game show. Even if she was featured in local papers afterwards, that doesn't mean we need to dedicate an article to her. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No refs in the article, very weak rationale for inclusion - the first British participant of several gameshows to earn a combined £1 million. Szzuk (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Killiondude (talk) 05:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jinjer

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

References only to niche online zines, seems to fall short of WP:MUSIC. A quick WP:BEFORE showed much the same. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:MUSIC as has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.[52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60]. — Za wl 15:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Due to the planned February 2018 reissue of the band's second album Cloud Factory on Napalm Records, they pass the fifth criteria listed under WP:MUSIC, as they will have released two albums on indie labels that could be described as more important (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable). This applies to Nuclear Blast and Napalm Records since each label has been in existence for over twenty years and has signed notable bands, some of which have achieved international fame. Seahorsecanyon (talk) 14:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. There's clear consensus that this doesn't belong in main space in its present form. What's not clear from the discussion is whether it's a hopeless case. Moving it to draft space per J04n solves the immediate problem while allowing for several possible ways forward and complies with WP:ATD.

With some work to clean up the WP:OR and (critically) find good sources, maybe this could be salvaged. Given that it's been tagged for sourcing problems for 11 years, I'm not terribly optimistic about that, but we'll see. Maybe some of it should be merged into Oregon Trail. Maybe some additional information about other trails and a rename would make this main-space-worthy. If, after some reasonable amount of time, there's been no useful progress in any of these areas, feel free to bring the draft back to ~~AfD~~ MfD.

Nice bovine picture. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I also deleted The big medicine trail, which redirected to this. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Medicine Trails

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Extensive searching found no actual use of the term "medicine trail" in association with these trails. The first source is a book on horse breeding which is completely immaterial to the topic. The Great Medicine Road, Part 1 is available on Google Books, but it does not use the term "Medicine trail" at any point. Similarly, searching the works cited + the term "medicine trail" turned up no results besides Wikipedia mirrors. Most of the content of the article is immaterial to the phrase "medicine trail" to begin with, and I was overall unable to find anything supporting the use of the term in this context. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Medicine Trails are faily well known walks and ancient trails you can go on, the citations are book based and can be found online, the article could be improved, but I so no reason to delete it what so ever. Govvy (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: I did look up the sources on Google books, and the ones I found did not contain the phrase "medicine trail" in them at all. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have the inkling this might be a notable topic, there are certainly quite a few mentions of them. However, searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show notability. If someone can provide that type of sourcing, would definitely !vote keep. Right now, I'm on the fence. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've just said this over at WP:ANI, so hopefully TenPoundHammer will do the decent thing and spend some time sorting this article out and withdrwing his AfD. Here is an admittedly lengthy breakdown of my assessment: Now, Medicine Trails is a pretty poorly-constructed, unreferenced article. But look at View History and you'll see a load of waffle about horses added by one person last year who only ever made eight edits - all to this article - and then left the Project. Strip that out the (literal) horseshit and you're left with this version. Read the lead sentence, noting the emboldening and the word prior to it. Check out the early forms of the article where none of it was emboldened. Do a Google search on "Big Medicine Trail" and related terms and suddenly we start to see we have an article (admittedly with a lot of OR in it) that's about the early origins of major trails across the US, used by animals, then native American Indians, and then the early explorers like Lewis and Clark and then hordes of white settlers migrating from east to west. We find the term Big Medicine Trail used in numerous sources referring to the early Trails like: this,this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and possibly even this. That makes me wonder whether the article was correctly titled, and whether a keep and rewrite, or at least a redirect to one of the major articles on N American trails (Oregon Trail, Great Osage Trail, Santa Fe Trail etc.), or to Lewis and Clark Expedition would be more appropriate. That's where I'm stopping as I have no knowledge of the history of American trails, and their origins, but I'm sure there are many here that do. What I do know is that this is yet another article from the same proposer that is definitely worthy of being retained. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes: So are you going to do the heavy lifting yourself, or are you going to pass the buck like everyone else? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: How dare you! Nick Moyes (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Great Medicine Trail" is also attested [61][62]. XOR'easter (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 14.192.208.83 (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Oregon Trail (selectively, possibly just redirect given state of OR here). This is just a POVFORK, full of OR, of the Oregon trail. Following Nick Moyes suggestion to look at big medicine trail - this source Pioneer Trails West, 1985 has this synonymous with Oregon trail - and much less used. Alternatively - we could turn this article into a list article using a more properly used term (e.g. Great Trail - which seems to be in the east) - for American Indian era trails - cutting out the OR here.Icewhiz (talk) 07:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looking at the actual content of the article, we already cover this at Indian route (United States)#Historical usage, which is actually sourced and well-written (this article isn't, so I wouldn't say there's much worth merging). -165.234.252.11 (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure about redirecting to Oregon Trail, since the sources provided above use the phrase to refer to the Oregon Trail, to a leg of Lewis and Clark's journey, to one specific Indian route through Wyoming, and as a metonym for westward migration in general. (And with the exception of the HQ snippet and the over-land.com site, which talk about Indian routes in general and then use the phrase "medicine trail" to mean the Wyoming route specifically, that's all they do, establish the phrase as an alternate name for something else. Nothing you could build an article on.) -165.234.252.11 (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From my reading - Big Medicine Trail is synonymous with Oregon Trail. Medicine trail seems wider.Icewhiz (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I know little about this, but I get the feeling that there is there basis of a worthwhile article here, though not necessarily with this name. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete When I weed out the numerous false hits (there's a "Two Medicine" park area which generates a ton of them) I was unable to find a good reference for this. And really, when you think about bison moving around in enormous herds, it just doesn't seem reasonable that they would produce relatively narrow pathways. What with all the irrelevant beating around the bush in the article, I have to think this is fakelore or even a hoax, and I don't think it should be merged anywhere because there's just not any evidence that it's in any way true. Mangoe (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Wilderness Trails, with new lede. Googling the phrase "Medicine Trails" with every single trail name in the article delivers zero hits outside of Wikipedia. Fails WP:GNG as titled. These are clearly wilderness trails, and are formed mostly by bison. So, how about a rename and this lede?:

Wilderness Trails, sometimes also called bison trails, are a series of North American trails made by the act of migrating animal herds for thousands of years. The herds, primarily bison, led early people out of the harsh full regions of the Ice Age and centuries later, the trails were followed by influential explorers during the exploration of the west. Some of these trails survive as modern highways.

Also add Great Osage Trail. Not a lot of heavy lifting required here - just consensus. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: As it stands this is a unreferenced page full of original research. In this discussion references have been provided, moving it to draft space would allow folks to incorporate them into the page. Others have suggested renaming or merging, either of those can happen while it is a draft. --J04n(talk page) 13:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 05:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Tetkowski

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional, not educational: Article is a promotion created and edited by the artist (Ntetkowski (talk · contribs)) and his friend/colleague (Subjectivedes (talk · contribs))
Unnecessary / non-notable: Article is not linked to ANYWHERE on Wikipedia.(WP:NOTABILITY)
Conflict of interest: Article is heavily subject to conflicts of interest per WP:CONFLICT, as the artist's and he both created it / edited it.
Lack of sources: It does not have a good amount of high quality sources to show it's worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia and was declined creation based on that previously. (WP:RS)
I propose delete due to the above reasons. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 00:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Mower

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only real claim to notability is a single event (WP:1E) of designing a dress for Michelle Obama when he was 12. Their subsequent activities in music and poetry do not appear to meet the threshold of notability under WP:CREATIVE. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete designing a dress for use by the first lady is not in and of itself a sign of notability, so the age at which he did so is of no consequence, and does not show him notable. If we keep this article, to be consistent we would need to keep articles on everyone who has designed a dress for the first lady, and clearly for the Queen of England, and proably many other queens, preisdents, wives of presidents, and probably some people who have designed major ceremonial clothings worn by men, and I just shudder to think what a mess keeping this article would create.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete and salt In the first place, the Huff Post article is full of qualifiers that, while he may have designed a dress for the former first lady, it doesn't say he made a dress that she wore. So I'm not seeing that this meets a standard for prodigies that they have notable adult achievements. There seems to be another BLP issue in that I suspect that the article conflates two people with the same name, and at any rate being someone else's boyfriend isn't enough, and there's no claim at all to adult musical/poetic achievements. Even by the standards of prodigies we've deleted of late this is poor, and even though he may be of age now, I ask that this be salted unless and until real notability as an adult is achieved. Mangoe (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the question you pointed out; I meant to comment in the initial nom. The ref in the article for Star Local Media includes a quote from Mower saying "I designed a dress for her and began working with some awesome designers. I came very close to having her wear it." Based on that, it appears the designed dress was not worn by her. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Killiondude (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sonu Ke Titu Ki Sweety (film)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another recreation of the same thing, utterly non-notable, somewhat spammy and likely sock creation. Fails GNG and NFILM. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 01:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page is very well referenced and a simple internet search can produce lots of genuine articles so notable enough. Last time page was up it was poorly referenced so understand the reason for deletion, but article has established enough notability for retention.JayB91 (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The film will be released soon and already gained significant coverage such as in [63]. More coverage will likely come after the release. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copper Coast Wines

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is not clear that this organisation still exists or has ever been notable. I note that Swanky beer was merged and redirected to this article two months after it survived AFD in 2007. Scott Davis ^Talk 01:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Scott Davis ^Talk 01:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Scott Davis ^Talk 01:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not the subject of significant (or any) coverage in reliable secondary sources. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note from nominator I should have also reported that an article about the founder who died in 2015 was recently also deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Hasse Davis --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no third party references. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Nominator should note that merge proposals should be made on article talk pages rather than AfD. Michig (talk) 08:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kem Cetinay

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N (music) as a stand alone biography, but as Chris & Kem duo, was #15 on UK singles music chart, so merge. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sources to justify a seperate article on just this person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~Keep Although I'm listed as creator, I just made this a redirect. I would say though that he ~~potentially~~ meets WP:ENT #1: Has had significant roles in multiple notable...television shows. Love Island was one of the biggest shows of 2017 and he is now one of the celebrities on Dancing on Ice. Additionally, as part of the musical duo Chris & Kem, he has had a #15 hit, so this would be a merge there at worst. I looked better for coverage - found numerous articles on him in the Metro, Telegraph, Evening Times, Guardian, Radio Times plus local papers, more than meets WP:BASIC. Boleyn (talk) 06:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your reasoning, Boleyn, but in this situation Kem is 1/2 of Chris & Kem which is where it needs to be redirected. To warrant a standalone, he needs more time to incubate as a solo performer. He may or may not go beyond being a duo. Time will tell. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, although he has had a hit record as part of a duo, this was essentially a novelty single by two reality TV personalities, rather than that they are a musical duo (who knows, they may prove everyone wrong and have a long career together!). They both appeared on the same show, Love Island, which is more what they are known for and what most of the coverage is on, plus now, Kem's 'Dancing on Ice' participation. Most coverage is of them separately and only Kem has had a significant role in multiple notable TV shows. Boleyn (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:ENT#C1.--Laun chba ller 20:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Clear consensus. Sadads (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Portraits of Presidents of the United States

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Taking to AFD since PROD was contested. This page violates WP:NOTGALLERY, which states Wikipedia is not an image repository, and what we have here is really just a collection of images with some accompanying text. It's better to just place each portrait in their corresponding presidential articles instead of having a page that's only decorative. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:IAR. The article contains a fair amount of encyclopedic information about the topic prior the gallery section, and the page is functional for readers with 4,994 page views in the last thirty days. The article also comes across as expandable. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just use blatant cop-outs like that. I fail to see any encyclopedic value that can't just be inserted into each President's article instead. View count is also entirely moot as it doesn't demonstrate anything about whether a page is worth keeping. See WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Pageview stats for more. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that some content should be merged, why not propose a merge, rather than deletion? My !vote stands. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would be pointless when the images (the only content of any discernible value) are already included in other pages. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I view the article's prose as having encyclopedic value, as stated in my !vote. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This is an official tradition, and has plenty of sources discussing it:

"The Tradition of Presidential Portraiture, Explained", Smithsonian Institution
"How presidents use their portraits to shape their legacy", Washington Post (subscription required)
"Critic's Choice: The Best and Worst Presidential Portraits", The New York Times (subscription required)
"The Evolution of the Presidential Portrait", Daily Beast

Clarityfiend (talk) 01:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing isn't the concern here; it's the fact that this is nothing more than a decorative collection. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trim; this is a notable and encyclopedic topic, but the gallery of presidential portraits violates WP:NOTGALLERY and the History section fails WP:TRIVIA. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The series of official portraits is a perfectly legitimate subject for an article. WP:NOTGALLERY discourages the creation of articles that are "merely collections of ... photographs or media files with no accompanying text", but that does not describe Portraits of Presidents of the United States; if all the images were removed there would remain an article of encyclopedic value. There is no good reason to trim. Ewulp (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Presidential portraiture is a significant topic. There are entire books on the topic. Cbl62 (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Clarityfiend (talk). --IndyNotes (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prasad Kaipa

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NACADEMIC. Run-of-the-mill person. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Completely non notable, unremarkable person. Fails WP:BIO. We are not a CV hosting service. scope_creep (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Karuma Hydroelectric Power Station. J04n(talk page) 12:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lira–Gulu–Agago High Voltage Power Line

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CRYSTAL. If and when this power plant actually gets constructed, it may become a notable subject. So far, it is a proposed line which has received little independent attention yet. The only independent reliable source in the article, "Sunrise Uganda", seems to be infected by some malware, as it first asks for a password and then gives a "website blocked" error which I could only get rid of by shutting down my browser. Not the kind of source added in response to a ProD which makes one happy.... Fram (talk) 07:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article claims four things in the "construction" section as of June 2017, but these are according to the source[64] things about a "Lira–Gulu–Nebbi–Arua High Voltage Power Line", and the "Gulu-Agago" line is the next section in that document, and has the status "Update of feasibility study in final stages". No "Lira-Gulu-Agago" line as a whole even exists in that document. Son instead of a 240km line from Lira, this is a 85 km line from Gulu where the feasability study isn't even finished. Fram (talk) 07:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs some !votes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 12:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but perhaps rename to Lira–Gulu-Agago Power/Transmission Line or something like that. There are indeed reliable sources covering this subject in New Vision, AllAfrica.com[65], Full Budget Speech 2015/2016 in NTV news, etc. The subject is notable and warrants a stand alone just like Kita-Iwaki powerline, Aust Severn Powerline Crossing, etc. During the development phase, much can be added including budget, etc. It would be silly to delete it now and then later try to recreate the same article. Senegambianamestudy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That first source mentions it (an extremely passing mention). The second source ha a bit more on the line (still not a lot), and makes it clear that the line may never be built: "With many Finance officials confirming there is no money in the Fund, there is no doubt that some of the projects that had been lined up will be affected." and "Funding for the line is also not reflected in the budget estimates for the Financial Year 2017/2018.". The third source is a government speech, not an independent source. "It would be silly to delete it now and then later try to recreate the same article." Not at all, that is exactly what WP:CRYSTAL is about. Delete when it is uncertain and there are few independent sources, recreate when it is certain and there are enough independent sources. Fram (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit clash) Comment regarding this document [66] from Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited (UETCL) as cited by Fram above. The article clearly states that the project is starting from Lira which is where UETCL's substation is located. Therefore, it is totally understandable why UETCL will not mention its own substation's location (Lira) but only mention "Gulu-Agago" as evident on page 19 of that document. That said, I also noticed that it did mention the "Lira-Gulu-Nebbi-Arua" transmission project. Notice however that, that particular project is on the first list of that heading. All subsequent projects under that heading where the project is starting from Lira were abbreviated with the word Lira omitted - as Lira has already been mentioned in the first line. My guess is this is merely a writing style. As regards to your latest comment above, those issues should be reflected in the article but financial/budgetary issues does not warrant a deletion of an article. It is not our place to determine whether something is going to be built or not and to use our own personal biases to push for a result. Our role is to cite the reliable sources which have been cited and leave it with the reader. To push for delete because you think it may not be completed is simply OR not to mention disruptive. Reliable sources which argue that case should be included in the article but that is not a genuine reason for delete. It is not for you to decide what will or will not be completed. If you think it will not be completed, put it in the article and cite your sources with reference to weight. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Fram : Further, that is a government budget published in a reliable source, so your point has not merit. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have given no indication whether I think it will be completed or not, and I have no interest in deciding what will or will not be completed (no idea where you get that idea from). But a line which has received very little independent attention (and the reprint of a government speech is not an independent source, just like the reprint of a press release is not an independent source), and where it is obviously unclear if and when it will be built, is not ready for an article; that is not "my own personal bias" but WP:CRYSTAL plain and simple. At the moment, this belongs in a list of HV lines in Uganda, with status "proposed" or some such. If it gets more individual, indepth, independent coverage it may be recreated as an independent article. Fram (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is adequately referenced. Fsmatovu 03:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Karuma Hydroelectric Power Station. The power line is only notable because it brings power from the power station.[[67]] The article is actually poorly sourced. If you remove primary sources and passing trivial mentions, there's almost nothing left. A Google search turns up nothing better; fails WP:GNG on its own, but with a single source it can be part of the power station article. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[1] ttps://timemail.in/about/

[2] Schilder, Aaron; Keys, Danielle (2012-05-22). "United Airlines to begin direct Denver-to-Tokyo flights". The Denver Post. Retrieved 2018-01-30.

[3] Booth, Darren (2013-06-10). "Sake Toast: United Starts Denver-Tokyo 787 Flight". CNBC. Retrieved 2018-01-30.

[4] "Special Report: United Airlines and the quest for a Denver-Tokyo flight". Denver Business Journal. Retrieved 2018-01-30.

[5] "成田からの直行便就航一周年！スポーツとビールの街、アメリカコロラド州「デンバー」とは". HuffPost Japan (in Japanese). 2014-08-05. Retrieved 2018-01-31.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]